ChatterBank2 mins ago
Would a matriarchal society be as discriminatory
32 Answers
I hold to the opinion that our values and beliefs are socially constructed. Those who wield the power, which in the main are white western men from a certain economic group, have shaped our society. Sexism and racism are very effective capitalist tools in which to control large sections of the population.
If there had ever been a matriarchy, would it have been a more caring sharing nurturing type of society, or would it have brought out the bitchiness that is inherent in women.
Well China Doll?
If there had ever been a matriarchy, would it have been a more caring sharing nurturing type of society, or would it have brought out the bitchiness that is inherent in women.
Well China Doll?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ruby27. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Heh, heh... Ok, you cheeky mare, I'll play...
You are correct in that our society and the way it was shaped was indeed done by white men. They shape it but we police it.
I know you like your history of women and that we share a couple of common interests there so why don't we start there? Back in the day Austen and Wolstencraft spoke out for the rights of (middle class) women and the education of them. Both were scathing of their own sex and pointed out that actually we held ourselves back by constantly belittling those women who tried to break the mould. We have an example of it in Pride and Prejudice with the lovely Miss Bingley talking about what a woman should and shouldn�t be. It was actually the powerful, white male that put her right. Equally Wolstencraft was married to Godwin who in his own right was a bit of a liberal leftie so we shouldn�t suppose that all members of the society felt the same way.
Anyway, lets bring it to the modern day. Shall we start with fashion?
Again, I�m not going to disagree with you that this is largely controlled by men but they are not encouraging women to be a size 0, all they want to do is sell clothes. By and large clothes generally look better on clothes horses� or teeny tiny models as they may prefer to be called. The men aren�t selling an image, they�re selling clothes. It�s women that then open the pages of their magazines and think that we have to conform to this idea of woman so we look good. It�s us that are the quickest to size up the appearance of another woman. We put that pressure on ourselves. We judge on what we see quicker than men do.
Is that a good start?
You are correct in that our society and the way it was shaped was indeed done by white men. They shape it but we police it.
I know you like your history of women and that we share a couple of common interests there so why don't we start there? Back in the day Austen and Wolstencraft spoke out for the rights of (middle class) women and the education of them. Both were scathing of their own sex and pointed out that actually we held ourselves back by constantly belittling those women who tried to break the mould. We have an example of it in Pride and Prejudice with the lovely Miss Bingley talking about what a woman should and shouldn�t be. It was actually the powerful, white male that put her right. Equally Wolstencraft was married to Godwin who in his own right was a bit of a liberal leftie so we shouldn�t suppose that all members of the society felt the same way.
Anyway, lets bring it to the modern day. Shall we start with fashion?
Again, I�m not going to disagree with you that this is largely controlled by men but they are not encouraging women to be a size 0, all they want to do is sell clothes. By and large clothes generally look better on clothes horses� or teeny tiny models as they may prefer to be called. The men aren�t selling an image, they�re selling clothes. It�s women that then open the pages of their magazines and think that we have to conform to this idea of woman so we look good. It�s us that are the quickest to size up the appearance of another woman. We put that pressure on ourselves. We judge on what we see quicker than men do.
Is that a good start?
In all, most populous present day societies are male dominated and that is a historical result of last 500 years of European military expansion and extermination of native cultures (of which most were not sexually dichotomized or oppressive to either sex). Even in many stratified societies, the highest positions in any field could be available to either gender.
Any woman past or present could be considered to be bought up in a man�s world, even Boudicca and Cleopatra. That seems a rather simplistic cop out. But perhaps where you say man�s world, you really mean a societal structure where men have dominance. In matriarchal societies � and they do exist albeit in small tribal groups in a few parts of the world � the men do tend to be dominated by the matriarch, but so are the women. In matriarchal societies there is no room for bitchiness, since everyone is required and expected without compromise to do what the matriarch says, even down to who to fornicate with and how many children to have and who with.
In a future matriarchal society, it is unlikely that the general societal framework � being generally of a male makeup � is unlikely to change greatly, women will still wage wars and raise taxes, although shopping might be made compulsory. Imagine it in 2070 �.WAG�s rule.
Any woman past or present could be considered to be bought up in a man�s world, even Boudicca and Cleopatra. That seems a rather simplistic cop out. But perhaps where you say man�s world, you really mean a societal structure where men have dominance. In matriarchal societies � and they do exist albeit in small tribal groups in a few parts of the world � the men do tend to be dominated by the matriarch, but so are the women. In matriarchal societies there is no room for bitchiness, since everyone is required and expected without compromise to do what the matriarch says, even down to who to fornicate with and how many children to have and who with.
In a future matriarchal society, it is unlikely that the general societal framework � being generally of a male makeup � is unlikely to change greatly, women will still wage wars and raise taxes, although shopping might be made compulsory. Imagine it in 2070 �.WAG�s rule.
Gromit
One definition of sexism is prejudice plus power. Feminists like me reject the notion that women can be sexist towards men because women lack the institutional power that men have. In the same way I disagree that black people in Britain can be racist. However without the power there is gender-based prejudice or racial based prejudice which is not desirable and should be eradicated when possible.
Bitchiness, well it is a quality that is ascribed to women and overall sadly I think we are better at it than men.
One definition of sexism is prejudice plus power. Feminists like me reject the notion that women can be sexist towards men because women lack the institutional power that men have. In the same way I disagree that black people in Britain can be racist. However without the power there is gender-based prejudice or racial based prejudice which is not desirable and should be eradicated when possible.
Bitchiness, well it is a quality that is ascribed to women and overall sadly I think we are better at it than men.
4GS
Twenty quid - is that all
You are looking at the clash of the titans
Two mighty brains coming together for intellectual combat to determine who is the greatest Interlocutor, debater....
or two of some of the gobbiest and opinionated females to hang around news and S and C arguing over fashion.
Surely its worth a bit more
Actually no, twenty quid is actually too much to pay
Twenty quid - is that all
You are looking at the clash of the titans
Two mighty brains coming together for intellectual combat to determine who is the greatest Interlocutor, debater....
or two of some of the gobbiest and opinionated females to hang around news and S and C arguing over fashion.
Surely its worth a bit more
Actually no, twenty quid is actually too much to pay
CD I have to bow to your superior knowledge of Austen and Wolsentcraft.
"The �size-zero debate�, and the thousand magazine spreads it has spawned, is a genius stroke of marketing. In the same crude way that sex sells, skinny-porn sells"
"There simply isn�t a market in objectifying men in this way. nobody - neither men nor women - is interested in mauling men in the same way that women tear at each other".
So we agree, but why are women so hypercritical, wanting a body shape that necessitates ill health and malnutrition in your average white western woman? Do we have to accept women are therefore stupid in some way or that whilst we are so busy attacking each other for having cellulite we are not in a position to form a sisterhood and unite to overthrow our oppressors and change our society?
"The �size-zero debate�, and the thousand magazine spreads it has spawned, is a genius stroke of marketing. In the same crude way that sex sells, skinny-porn sells"
"There simply isn�t a market in objectifying men in this way. nobody - neither men nor women - is interested in mauling men in the same way that women tear at each other".
So we agree, but why are women so hypercritical, wanting a body shape that necessitates ill health and malnutrition in your average white western woman? Do we have to accept women are therefore stupid in some way or that whilst we are so busy attacking each other for having cellulite we are not in a position to form a sisterhood and unite to overthrow our oppressors and change our society?
You have a point there, Theland. Pretty scary I reckon.
No, I don't believe a matriarchy would bring a more caring, sharing, nurturing society. By your own admission, Ruby, women are often bitchy, and that doesn't bode well for commonsense decision making - not to mention all those hormones leaping about and screwing women's brains - and often bodies - for several days a month. Men may not be able to multitask as we wonderful ladies can, but I believe they generally focus on a problem directly and aim to resolve it without allowing clashes of personality to get in the way. At the risk of being hung, drawn and quartered, in my view, when it comes to serious decision-making, most (and I emphasise 'most') men are usually far more sensible than women simply because they do not behave with each other in the way that women often do. (Ducks and runs off!).
No, I don't believe a matriarchy would bring a more caring, sharing, nurturing society. By your own admission, Ruby, women are often bitchy, and that doesn't bode well for commonsense decision making - not to mention all those hormones leaping about and screwing women's brains - and often bodies - for several days a month. Men may not be able to multitask as we wonderful ladies can, but I believe they generally focus on a problem directly and aim to resolve it without allowing clashes of personality to get in the way. At the risk of being hung, drawn and quartered, in my view, when it comes to serious decision-making, most (and I emphasise 'most') men are usually far more sensible than women simply because they do not behave with each other in the way that women often do. (Ducks and runs off!).
Right, I'm back now, allbeit briefly...
Yes, we do agree but you're looking at the issue and comparing it with men which is a fundamental mistake made these days when we try to be PC about everything. Yes, men and women are equals but we're not the same, there are differences.
There is not the mauling aspect to fashion and men because by and large it simply wouldn't work. Because of the patriarcal society it has always been accepted that men can pretty much look however they want and that's ok. They can carry extra pounds or whatever and there has not been the negativeity in the past that a woman would be subjected to. (I say in the past as anorexia in men is increasing and with the rise of the metrosexual male men definitely are spending more time obsessing about their experience which I'm not entirely convinced is a good thing... though at least they now change their pants daily).
However women, again perhaps because in the past it was our appearence that recommended us continue the trend of judging first by physical appearence. Why do we do this? I don't believe it's because we're stupid or shallow but neither do I think it's because we're in some way oppressed. (Yes there's still a glass ceiling but we'll come to that later). Is it possible that we're still going through a transitional phase where we're not entirely sure of our role in society so we're testing our boundries and in this infant stage we're at we're clinging to the past? Like a baby still wanting to be spoon fed even when it knows and wants to feed itself? Can we not just cut the cord?
Yes, we do agree but you're looking at the issue and comparing it with men which is a fundamental mistake made these days when we try to be PC about everything. Yes, men and women are equals but we're not the same, there are differences.
There is not the mauling aspect to fashion and men because by and large it simply wouldn't work. Because of the patriarcal society it has always been accepted that men can pretty much look however they want and that's ok. They can carry extra pounds or whatever and there has not been the negativeity in the past that a woman would be subjected to. (I say in the past as anorexia in men is increasing and with the rise of the metrosexual male men definitely are spending more time obsessing about their experience which I'm not entirely convinced is a good thing... though at least they now change their pants daily).
However women, again perhaps because in the past it was our appearence that recommended us continue the trend of judging first by physical appearence. Why do we do this? I don't believe it's because we're stupid or shallow but neither do I think it's because we're in some way oppressed. (Yes there's still a glass ceiling but we'll come to that later). Is it possible that we're still going through a transitional phase where we're not entirely sure of our role in society so we're testing our boundries and in this infant stage we're at we're clinging to the past? Like a baby still wanting to be spoon fed even when it knows and wants to feed itself? Can we not just cut the cord?
No I think a lot of it is downright vanity.
People tend to believe that looks and appearance = power and wealth. Women are more able than men to use their looks or their clothes as a statement, or even to get what they want. I have worked at many companies where women were only too happy to sleep their way to the top and dressed to impress (get noticed, then laid, then promoted). Nobody could get in the way of these women and they would do anything to achieve that success. I tried it in one company, but the boss wasn�t interested. He said I probably needed a holiday.
Of course I know not all women are like this and they tend to b!tch about the ones that are, just like the men that b!tch about the male bum-lickers.
People tend to believe that looks and appearance = power and wealth. Women are more able than men to use their looks or their clothes as a statement, or even to get what they want. I have worked at many companies where women were only too happy to sleep their way to the top and dressed to impress (get noticed, then laid, then promoted). Nobody could get in the way of these women and they would do anything to achieve that success. I tried it in one company, but the boss wasn�t interested. He said I probably needed a holiday.
Of course I know not all women are like this and they tend to b!tch about the ones that are, just like the men that b!tch about the male bum-lickers.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.