Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Superior WOMEN

Recently, Chuck P. sent me the following:

"I believe that soon the world will prevail on enlightened women to take over the ruling roles before men of violence bring about total annihilation with their barbaric policies.

"More and more, countries run by madmen like Yong Il in North Korea and Khomeini in Iran add to the threat of all out nuclear war.

"The historical patriarchal system is obsolete and unable to avert disaster, and matriarchy is the only hope for humanity.

"We need enlightened superior women to return sanity to government before it is too late."


What do you think?

16 comments:

Mike said...

Um, I think that seeing the world soley in terms of the "patriarchy" is like seeing the world solely in terms of the modes of production, a la classic Marxism.

In other words, Chuck P.'s prediction is childishly naive and simplistic.

Struggle For Justice said...

What is more naive and simplistic than the Bush administration's policy in Iraq? There is no justification for believing that Iraq is even remotely connected to 9/11 and yet there are otherwise intelligent people who agree with our misguided president. Like many sexist chauvinists Mike tries to simplifiy a very complex international scenario and the result is reductio ad absurdum.

Male dominated governments have had centuries to demonstrate their statesmanship and the record of untold deaths and widespread destruction is ample proof that they have failed humanity most miseably.

Andygrrl said...

well who says you have to see the world "solely" in terms of patriarchy? Ever heard of Marxist feminism? Anarcha-feminism? Environmental feminism? Patriarchy encompasses entire structures and systems like economics, the environment, etc. Feminism isn't narrowly focused on one dynamic; it illuminates the connections between these oppressions.

Struggle For Justice said...

Mike and Andy girl, there is not room onthis blog to write a master's thesis on such a complex subject, so chill out!

Mike said...

Andygrrl, I can agree to a point. I should rephrase: to blame all the world's problems on men and to credit women with the world's potential salvation is childishly simplistic. To then believe that a revolution is somehow coming is incredibly naive. Better?

I don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, SFJ. I say Chuck D is being simplistic, then out of nowhere you claim I am being simplistic about issues I never even mentioned?

Athana said...

"Male dominated governments have had centuries to demonstrate their statesmanship, and their record of untold deaths and widespread destruction is ample proof that they have failed humanity most miserably."

You can hardly argue with this statement, Mike. Do you really think women could do worse than men have done over the past 6000 years?

Actually, I think women are smart enough to know that the only system that works is one in which women and men are equal, have equal power, have equal worth, and are equally responsible for the world.

Athana said...

Well put, andygrrl. I'm certain most don't have a clue how complex feminist theory is. I'm no expert on it by any means, but from my limited understanding it's a broad system of explanatory thought that encompasses the entire sphere of human society and culture -- just as Marxism is. Sounds like you're fairly current on the topic.

Mike said...

You can hardly argue with this statement, Mike. Do you really think women could do worse than men have done over the past 6000 years?

Look at this with a deconstructive eye. Western culture traditionally has a male-female binary opposition, with the male half being privileged. If you think that reversing that privilege so women are on top is going to fix anything, then yes, I emphatically disagree.

I have a question. Why have men dominated (from your point of view) the world for so long?

Are women responsible in any way for the state of the world? In other words, could women have acted in other ways which would have made a better world?

If you say yes, that women could have acted differently, then why on earth are they any better than men?

If you say no, then isn't your entire political structure based around begging men for power?

Athana said...

1) I repeat, Mike: "...I think women are smart enough to know that the only system that works is one in which women and men are equal, have equal power, have equal worth, and are equally responsible for the world." (see my previous comment)

2)Why men have dominated the world for so long is explained in the following posts:

http://godmotherascending.blogspot.com/2005/10/god-symptom-or-cause.html

http://godmotherascending.blogspot.com/2005/11/where-did-gods-come-from.html

http://godmotherascending.blogspot.com/2005/12/schizoid.html

Whenever women have tried to act in ways which would have made a better world, they have been burned at the stake, stoned to death, imprisoned in their homes, imprisoned in mental instutitions, otherwise beaten, tortured and raped, had their children taken away, and/or had their children brutalized, murdered or raped.

Haven't you taken a course in women's history yet?

Mike said...

You say you want a world in which women and men are equal. Equal power, equal responsibility.

The problem is, equal worth and power do not exist naturally. Somebody has to push for that type of equality. People who don't push for equality must bear responsiblity for its lack.

You seem to have answered my earlier question. I asked if women could have acted differently in the past to make the world a better place... you seem to have said no, they could not have. Women could not have made the world better. Well, what on earth has changed? What makes you think women can positively affect the world now?

If you think women could not affect the past, can they affect the present? I think we'll both agree that they can. Why? Because they live in technologically advanced societies with middle classes, which gives rise to a concept of rights, which gives rise to a voluntary sharing of power. In other words, if women could not have affected the past, they can only affect the present because men let them.

Or you could just say that women bear equal responsibility for the state of the world, both past and present. And stop demonizing men, mainstream religion, and the climate.

Diana said...

There are some excellent issues being raised here...although clouded by emotions on both sides. Taking a step back...

athana said: "I think women are smart enough to know that the only system that works is one in which women and men are equal, have equal power, have equal worth, and are equally responsible for the world."

The only word I have issue with in your statement is the third one in. "I think WOMEN (my emphasis)are smart enough.." To be sure, there are members of both genders who believe that men and women should have equal status. To separate the genders into separate camps even while saying they are both equal defeats the purpose of the comment.

Interesting discussion!

Athana said...

In one sense, I see your point, Diana. It's very easy, though, to get caught in the trap of bowing down to power. Currently, men-in-general are hogging the power. And men-in-general, as the power hoggers, have not seen fit to share power equally with women. By ANY stretch of the imagination.

On the other hand, the evidence suggests that, when women have had a slight edge in power, they have bent over backwards to share that power equally with men. Check out the Iroquois, or the Minoans, for example.

Danish said...

This is an interesting and long debate. It does not matter what my personal believes are, what matters is how intelligent are we? From what I know, Intelligence means "learning from experiences". If we apply the same definition of intelligence on humans history we will see that men have not learned much from history as one common factor in our history is "men's constant pursuit of power at the cost of human lives". No matter how much you go back in time, no matter what religion, or race of part of the world they were/are in, men have always been involved in some kind of war and destruction. So according to intelligence definition, men have learned nothing from their expereince. Just look around yourself and you will notice that men can't go without war for no more than 10 years! Why are they always fighting? And they fight to steal from other men who have something that they don't which will make them more powerful. So yes, men have no intelligence whatsoever or they would have learned to live in peace by now.
And since men have been dominating for so long, they don't let women take over, hell they don't let other men take over thier powers, how can they let women take over? Also, if you look around, you will notice that women make homes nice, clean, and beautiful, they would take peace over fight almost 100% of the time and if they were to run the world, I am sure the world would have been nice, clean, and beautiful like women are themselves. They are more organized then men, they get more college degrees then men, and they work 70% of the world's work and still make less money then men. Men have hurt women a lot, in fact so much that if you read about it you will notice that almost 100% of the time they were hurt because it was in men's interest and had nothing to do with any religion or culture (btw, cultures are also man made).

Women are much more intelligent than men and they always learn from their expereinces and they learn very quickly or they would have been the ones fighting all the time. They also learned that it is the brain that is more powerful than testicles or penis. That is why more women finish college degrees and more women are in better shape financially then men are. You will find more men with bad credit then women.

I am hoping and wishing that Hillary or some other lady would win the presidential election this year as it is about time.
I think women should be given a fair chance to rule the world for a good thousand years before saying that they cannot run it.

Btw, I am a man:)

Athana said...

You've made some very interesting points, Danish. Come back and visit more often!

william said...

Hi Athana,

I have read your book, "Switching to Goddess" and very much liked the first half of it. But i have to say, i have real problems with the theory that famine and starvation caused the rise of patriarchy.

People starving to death still happens today. And the problem of starvation is not that people turn into savages, Reports from charity organizations is that people who are starving become very lethargic and don't do much to help themselves.

Also i think in desperate conditions a matriarchal tribe is far more likely to survive than a patriarchal tribe. This is because in a patriarchal tribe it will be the men who will commandeer what little food they have and the women and children won't have anything. So that in the end you will have a tribe of only men, who will be unable to reproduce themselves.

Whereas in a matriarchal tribe the food will go to the women and children. And if most of the men starve to death, it will not effect the survival of the tribe because one man can fertilize hundreds of women.

So in times of starvation matriarchal tribes will survive and patriarchal tribes will come extinct.

I think patriarchy probably come about when there was too much food. Men sat around not having anything to do got bored and ended up fighting other men in other tribes for a bit of excitement. And if women didn't put a stop to this, then men learned violence and end up not only using violence against other men but against women. Once men found out they could dominate women though violence then this started the whole patriarchal revolution.

I don't want to disagree with you on this. As i agree with the whole concept of matriarchy and believe women will rule the world better than men.

Athana said...

William, see my today's post (4/9/10) for my thoughts on your thoughts.