Feminism and Societal Suicide

[witch]

But why has the world come to be conquered and dominated by patriarchies?


bescause uppity women die ........ and they are still dying around the world even in this day and age

 

[maxcok]

But why has the world come to be conquered and dominated by patriarchies? Can anyone name a single large scale long lasting civilization in human history that was a matriarchy?

And this to you is the mark of "civilization"?

The advantage inherent in patriarchies is not merely a historical curiosity - as feminism pushes western societies increasingly toward matriarchy, it weakens these societies and prepares them for conquest and/or internal revolution.

Then maybe what we need is a "revolution" in thought, leading to a more enlightened social structure. Maybe then we can finally get past all that conquest and domination shit. That model is working so well, isn't it?

I am reminded of a special Ted Koppel did many years ago on the neverending Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It was groundbreaking, in that he was able to get leading representatives from both sides to appear together in the studio to debate. In order to achieve that, he had to build a literal symbolic wall down the middle of the set.

In the course of the debate what struck me was this: While the two or three old men representing each side of the divide continued to bellow, dig up old wrongs, and generally not listen to each other, the two women (Hanan Ashrawi on the Palestinian side, and I forget the Israeli woman) were having an actual separate conversation and finding common ground. Eventually they broke into smiles and laughter, and commented wryly, "if only we could get these men out of the way . . . " It was a profound moment.

 

[petite]

Your assertions are confusing. How can matriarchy be so powerful that it will topple patriarchy, but make society so weak that they will be conquered or overcome by internal revolution? Conquered by whom? Wait, wouldn't a societal change from patriarchy to matriarchy constitute an internal revolution in itself, making the phrase "overcome by internal revolution" redundant?

You're just over-reacting. Trying to create a society where women are not second-class citizens is not "societal suicide."

 

[B_Hickboy]

Y'all ran his ass off. Good job!

 

[maxcok]

Y'all ran his ass off. Good job!

but . . . I thought you wanted to kick him around some more:

Oh, no, dear boy. You're about to become my favorite toy.

 

[B_Hickboy]

but . . . I thought you wanted to kick him around some more:

Only enough to get him to fuck off out of it.

 

[maxcok]

Only enough to get him to fuck off out of it.

So your rep as a hardass and a complete sadist has been exagerrated? ;-)

 

[B_Hickboy]

So your rep as a hardass and a complete sadist has been exagerrated? ;-)

just can't keep a secret, can ya?

 

[maxcok]

just can't keep a secret, can ya?

sorry. maybe I can get Mr. P to delete that.

 

[B_Hickboy]

sorry. maybe I can get Mr. P to delete that.

I am a softass and an incomplete sadist. But I must have some masochistic tendencies about me, because I keep reading this guy's posts.

 

[TroMag]

mitchymo, it would be a lot easier to quote you if you don’t embed your response inside the quoted post you’re responding to.

Your 3 questions were:-
Equality is new. Who says either patriarchy or matriarchy are superior?

I’m not arguing that one is morally superior to the other. History demonstrates that patriarchy builds civilizations, and matriarchy does not.

Chauvinism.

I’m not sure in which sense you mean the term – nationalism or male chauvinism. If the former, how did we even get to nation states where nationalism could be used as a rallying cry? Why didn’t matriarchal societies build nation states?

Ask again in a couple more centuries when society has been liberated from the grasp of tosspots.

We’ll see how things play out, but it seems to me that society is moving away from liberation and toward economic slavery of the masses. Witness the slow, ongoing decimation of the middle class.

 

[TroMag]

And this to you is the mark of "civilization"?

Interesting point. I would argue that patriarchal ‘civilizations’ provide relatively more ‘civil’ living than the alternative.

Then maybe what we need is a "revolution" in thought, leading to a more enlightened social structure. Maybe then we can finally get past all that conquest and domination shit. That model is working so well, isn't it?

You can have whatever social structure you want, but if it (matriarchy) is competing in the same world with a superior (in the Darwinian sense) social structure (patriarchy), it is doomed.

I suppose the only way it might work is if there was one global society/government, so that no competing social structures existed. But even then, its formation, and especially its maintenance, will require plenty of bloodshed.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[TroMag]

Your assertions are confusing. How can matriarchy be so powerful that it will topple patriarchy, but make society so weak that they will be conquered or overcome by internal revolution?

It’s not a matriarchal society that is defeating a patriarchal society. It is feminism that is morphing a patriarchal society into a matriarchal society. This transformation leaves the society rife for unrest or invasion. Why? Hint - who will defend it?

Conquered by whom?

A patriarchal society.

You're just over-reacting. Trying to create a society where women are not second-class citizens is not "societal suicide."

This goes back to that earlier thread – women were only ‘second-class citizens’ when viewed through the lens that men and women are equal. But is it not abundantly clear that men and women are not equal? That there are a great many differences? This is not to say one is superior to the other, just that they are different.

 

[TroMag]

OK, let’s step back a bit. Imagine a world of total sexual freedom, with men and women free to have sex with whomever they want (assuming it is consensual of course), free from religious or moral codes against promiscuity and free from societal shaming of ‘slut’ behavior. One could argue that in the USA, and particularly, its large coastal cities, we are in the early stages of that sort of scenario.

Who are the sexual winners in this scenario? Are there any sexual losers? If so, who?

 

[maxcok]

You're just so not worth the waste of time and energy.

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

Regardless of how he thinks, he is bringing up some ideas and questions people are seemlingly just writing off as a waste of their time to answer. So don't answer them if you don't want to.

The Etc. forum is a majory gay males, with a few exceptions, you aren't going to get the same response from it as you would think. I'd say this would have had a better debate without just being written off as a waste of time in the Women's Issue Forum, i suggest having it moved there. It would probably have novels of response there.

 

[sbat]

OK, let’s step back a bit. Imagine a world of total sexual freedom, with men and women free to have sex with whomever they want (assuming it is consensual of course), free from religious or moral codes against promiscuity and free from societal shaming of ‘slut’ behavior. One could argue that in the USA, and particularly, its large coastal cities, we are in the early stages of that sort of scenario.

Who are the sexual winners in this scenario? Are there any sexual losers? If so, who?

Hell, I'm bored, I'll bite.

This pretty much describes college life in France. The willing non-participants were the girls (and much smaller group of corresponding boys) who required love before sex. There were virtually no female non-willing non-participants, but many male non-willing non-participants. I'm assuming by winners you mean those who found themselves sexually/socially satisfied.

I did notice that within university circles, there were fuzzy tiers of sexual rings - where a selected few guys were passed around.
The rings were based on attractiveness and wealth, and not unlike Hollywoods A-list, B-list and so on. A-list girls would only touch A-list guys (or rich men with yachts in St Tropez or Monaco), B-list girls would go for A-list if they could, but generally B-list guys, C-list with A and B list, but generally C. A-list guys had their pick of pretty much any girl, while selection narrowed as you went down the ranks. Far more guys that are B than A, and that are C than B, and so on down the line. At some point, you get to a group that takes whatever it can get and never has the luxury of saying no.

So in your scenario, the real winners are the A-list guys and most of the women (who always had enough options to say no).

What was your point again?

 

[petite]

Oh for god's sake. You seriously think that because of feminists, in the future we're no longer going to have a military? That's where you're taking this argument right? More women in charge means no military, so China or whoever you think might want to invade us will succeed?

Again, you've confused "equal" with "same." I've already read plenty of other responses to you about this, yet you repeat the same idiotic thing again.

You're just so not worth the waste of time and energy.

You are so right! What a waste of time and energy. He's a troll.

 

[maxcok]

Fine. In response to MR's challenge:

Interesting point. I would argue that patriarchal ‘civilizations’ provide relatively more ‘civil’ living than the alternative.

What exactly is 'civil' about a society that is in a constant state of war or preparing for war? What kind of 'civil living' is provided in a country like the United States where we spend an obscene amount of our treasure serving as the policemen of the world, while people die for lack of basic healthcare or homeless in our streets? What was 'civil' about life in the Soviet Union or the Roman empire at their demise, collapsing as they did from the sheer weight of defending themselves against military threats? What was/is civil about life in those supremely patriarchal and militaristic societies of Iraq, Iran, North Korea . . . . ?

You can have whatever social structure you want, but if it (matriarchy) is competing in the same world with a superior (in the Darwinian sense) social structure (patriarchy), it is doomed.

First of all, we have precious few examples of matriarchal societies to draw upon for comparison. However, just because they have not existed, does not negate their viablility. Secondly, you have created a false construct by applying a Darwinian standard of mere species survival to define success in social evolution. If we are to evolve socially, if we are to be successful, indeed if we are to survive, we will have to move beyond such limited and archaic thinking.

I suppose the only way it might work is if there was one global society/government, so that no competing social structures existed. But even then, its formation, and especially its maintenance, will require plenty of bloodshed.

Besides your false construct above, you have provided a false choice limited to two polarities. The world of my imagination is neither patriarchal nor matriarchal. It is humanist, and it demonstrates responsible stewardship of the natural world we all occupy. I don't think it is a utopian vision, I think it is possible, but in order to achieve it we will have to lay to rest the sort of Neanderthal thinking you represent. Hopefully we will evolve to the awareness that our survival on this planet we all share depends on a new way of thinking before we annihilate ourselves. Hopefully it can be achieved through intelligence and not bloodshed. In order for that to happen, folks like you will need to step aside, or if push comes to shove . . . . well it's survival of the species, isn't it?


p.s. MR, if you are so hot to debate this topic, feel free to step right up.
......And what, pray tell, does sexual orientation have to do with this??......

 

[Ethyl]

OK, let’s step back a bit. Imagine a world of total sexual freedom, with men and women free to have sex with whomever they want (assuming it is consensual of course), free from religious or moral codes against promiscuity and free from societal shaming of ‘slut’ behavior. One could argue that in the USA, and particularly, its large coastal cities, we are in the early stages of that sort of scenario.

Who are the sexual winners in this scenario? Are there any sexual losers? If so, who?

So from your perspective, sex is always a win/lose scenario? How tragic for you.