This, on the other hand, is just silly. There are too few matriarchal societies to even make a serious claim like this.
Should we then presume that you are a self-aggrandizing male?
Fair enough, I won’t do it again
I don’t think it’s any of the above. I do think it’s very, very naive, though. It’s something I thought when I was 20 or so, before I had a lot of real world experience. It’s a very common “what if” when one starts down the modern pagan path…there’s a myth in the religion that the world used to be run by women, in utopian matriarchies. There’s little to no evidence that this was ever the case on a widespread basis.
After ~15 years of working in Goddess-oriented religions, among neopagan groups with strong, strong female leadership, I gotta say…no. Just…no. We don’t know how to do this any better than men. Our feet are just as clayey. We can’t figure out how to make money (we do seem more prone than men to giving away our things and our time and skills at great financial, physical and emotional cost to ourselves, not good things for directing economic policy). We can’t run a 200 person festival without someone having a nervous breakdown and a minimum of 20 other people getting caught up in the ensuing dramafest. Witch wars are infuriatingly common, and draining, and tend to scatter people and diffuse political energy, not concentrate and direct it.
This doesn’t mean that *some *women aren’t great leaders, of course. I don’t think women should be prevented from being leaders if they’re good at it just because others are bad at it. But I’ve seen no evidence that women, as a group, are superior to men at leadership, politics, or governance. Do you have any evidence?
I’d think, speaking bluntly, that if women were good at it, we’d have done it. As in, there’d be some significant current culture with predominantly female leadership. As far as I know, aside from some small intentional communities or recreationist groups, we just don’t.
Why are there too few matriachal societies?
Could it not be that unsuccessful societies die out or evolve?
**Qin Shi Huangdi ** - I can see how my viewpoint may come across as sexist, or might even be sexist, but so what? It’s not like it’s a negative connotation. And I am not a self-hating man by any means, that’s just funny to me.
“If you’re ever captured by the enemy, never let them give you to the women.” Women when it comes to fighting have historically been known for ruthlessness and cruelty, not niceness. For among other things being more willing to kill other women than men are. They’ve generally been less interested than men in being personally involved in fighting in the first place, but for a female dominated military that isn’t an option.
Cock pics or we won’t believe you :):)
I don’t know that there are too few matriarchal societies in some absolute sense. There are too few matriarchal societies in a relative sense to determine whether they are more prone to failure. That there are fewer matriarchies than patriarchies might be due to nothing more than the propensity for men to dominate warfare and so many societies being dominated by conquest. That hardly speaks to the success or failure of a type of society. The apparent record regarding matriarchies could also have been determined by the accident of history that most publications on such topics originated from a patriarchal Western society. (For example, the Iroquois, who established the beginnings of an empire before it was sundered by European invaders, had a dual system that was neither exclusively patriarchal nor matriarchal, but show up in most histories as a patriarchal society because the 19th century authors who first wrote about them simply ignored the roles of women. We do not yet (if ever) know how often similar cases existed.)
There was another comedian whose name escapes me who hat a bit: “If women ruled the world, we’d have no wars. I know this because no woman leader has ever started a war. Well, except for Margaret Thatcher. And Indira Gandhi. And Joan of Arc. And Cleopatra. And virtually every other woman leader in history.”
Give the women the power, let the men regulate. And this goes for every country around the world.
Don’t ask me how but that’s the way I think it should be.
Women are just people. They’d do about the same as men, in the long run.
I think if somehow you could force this change very suddenly (how?) then it might work better for a little while, just because women would have something to prove, and also they’ve been socialized to a large extent to compromise, etc. I think after a couple of years, though, women would get drunk on the power and would be worse than ever. I’m just guessing though; I could be totally off. I think it’s a silly idea anyway, but fun to fantasize about sometimes.
I also like to fantasize about being World Dictator. A truly awful idea, in reality, but fun to think about in traffic.
Sorry but sometimes I do state my views in an over-the-top way.
Sexism isn’t bad? 
What does that even mean?
Behind every successful woman would be a good man.
So sexism is bad. Believing women to be better at something than men, based on no evidence (indeed believing despite plenty of evidence to the contrary) is certainly sexist.
I don’t think we have any direct evidence of a matriarchal society. Some matrilineal societies, sure, but that’s not the same thing as matriarchal.
I just realized I should clarify two things-
#1 I am calling Scotty Mo’s POSITION sexist, not Scotty Mo
#2 I did not mean to imply that men are better leaders. I meant that historically, women in power have been just as warlike as men.
uh, sexism works both ways, just like any other prejudice. would you argue that “black people are good at basketball” is an appropriate statement? your attempt to “compliment” women in this way - especially with statements like “give women the power, let the men regulate,” which don’t seem to make any sense to begin with - are not enlightened but patronizing
Der Trish - I don’t know completely, but there are ways to have people in power to make decisions, but also have checks and balances, right?
My post might be sexist but like I said it’s not a negative one. If I said men were better at lifting weights than women would that be sexist? I’d say no but regardless the fact remains and that’s the way it is.
In my opinion, women at large are more caring, compassionate and less prone to acts of violence than men. Can anyone imagine a situation where a war was being fought and the soldiers were women? Because I just can’t. And if we as a society, can eliminate that part of our existence, we can focus a lot more of our time and resources into things that matter.
But ‘men are on average physically stronger than women’ IS a fact. It would be easy to find cites from many respectable sources backing up that claim.
‘Women are more caring, compassionate, and less prone to violence than men’ is an opinion, and not one backed up by evidence.
Second, even an opinion that a group is better at something is still prejudice.
Fer example
‘Asians are better at math’
‘Jews are smarter’
Yes, yes I can. Hell, I can imagine somebody as loving and matronly as Dr Ruth being a sniper. Oh, wait. She WAS a sniper in the Israeli Defense Force until an explosion put shrapnel in her knees.