Bohemian's Back Message Board › Patriarchy - A succesful working model ?

Patriarchy - A succesful working model ?

Omar M.
ometwalli
San Diego, CA
Post #: 24
This topic deserves a lot more than what I can write in the time I have, but here is at least a starting point.

Much of patriarchy also has its roots in Religion. With the majority of people on this planet following one religion or another, it's pretty obvious that the "authors" or "keepers" of the various sacred texts (men not gods) have instilled the concept of woman subjugation early on. It's an outdated system that is truly damaging to our society because women have quite possibly the wisdom to save humankind from self destruction.

It is important to differentiate women in power today, from women in power in a non-patriarchal world. Women in power today have to fight an uphill battle ( and often one another ) to get to the top, and the ones that make it are a indeed have changed to fit in the structures all around them. I'm speaking of a society where women and men are equally represented at every level AND work in a way to COMPLEMENT each other without hierarchies.




Wally
user 4143008
San Diego, CA
Post #: 79
I've always wondered what a non-male-created power structure would look like. Are there any examples of matriarchal societies or structures that would illustrate this?
A former member
Post #: 346
Not it the industrialized world.
Omar M.
ometwalli
San Diego, CA
Post #: 25
Matriarchy is not necessarily the solution either, but it is quite often assumed to be the opposite of patriarchy. I'm proposing a society with no gender based "-archy". Where neither men or women are the majority head of households, communities,nations etc.... nor do the structures encourage the growth or impede one or the other.

To my knowledge this has not happened yet... why would one gender have to rule over the other. The days of men "protecting" women with brute force is over, and besides we want want to look for alternative solutions to violence... which leads me to my next topic... peaceful communication and non violence. Ill try to add it later.
Wally
user 4143008
San Diego, CA
Post #: 83
I've found an unlikely example of a woman-run non-matriarchal, non patriarchal organization in one of the subsidiary groups of the Tea Party movement.

Here's the link.

Here's an excerpt (my bold):
One of the three main sponsors of the Tax Day Tea Party that launched the movement is a group called Smart Girl Politics. The site started out as a mommy blog and has turned into a mobilizing campaign that trains future activists and candidates. Despite its explosive growth over the last year, it is still operated like a feminist cooperative, with three stay-at-home moms taking turns raising babies and answering e-mails and phone calls. Spokeswoman Rebecca Wales describes it as a group made up of "a lot of mama bears worried about their families." The Tea Party, she says, is a natural home for women because "for a long time people have seen the parties as good-ole'-boy, male-run institutions. In the Tea Party, women have finally found their voice."

Here's some commentary from an Economist blog.
A former member
Post #: 351
They do love Sarah Palin.
Omar M.
ometwalli
San Diego, CA
Post #: 27
I need to get educated on the tea party because several people have brought it up in our meetups. For some reason, all I saw thus far from the tea party is crowds repeating fox news slogans and canned phrases. I'm also curious as to the whereabouts of the tea party when bush was in charge. Something is not right. Anyways....
A former member
Post #: 352
That is all Fox really shows (when I was watching) too. I assume they were all pro-Bush when Bush was in. From what I have seen on Fox, many Tea Party folks think Obama and other democrats are socialists and felt McCain was way too liberal for their liking. So they were left out in "right field" for the last election, because nobody running was conservative enough to be in line for what they want government to do. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't see them as neo-cons. From Fox, I also detected a strong undercurrent of racism with them. Not only the Hitler signs (which were used for Bush too), but signs showing Obama with exaggerated African facial features. Perhaps our libertarian Tea Party sympathizer can enlighten us.
Wally
user 4143008
San Diego, CA
Post #: 85
Last year when I went to the post office to drop off a tax return, there was a tea party demonstration, and I went down and talked to a number of the participants. My impression was that they were believers in small government who had been somewhat quiescent while Bush was in office (given that people generally trusted Republicans to advocate on the side of smaller government), but had become activated by the huge increase in debt, spending, and Obama's proposed plan for national health care. It wasn't that they approved of the high spending under Republicans, but during better economic times there was more leeway given Bush, who should nominally have been a political ally. Obama, however, unequivocally advanced an agenda contrary to their ideals, and the economic meltdown made their fears suddenly become palpable, driving them to action. The people I saw at the rally were middle class with concerns almost exclusively economic. They were predominantly white and middle aged, with fewer asians, hispanics, and one vociferous black man. There was no gender imbalance that I saw, and I encountered no racism at all.

I don't doubt that there are racist individuals amongst the tea partiers, but I think the impression of their numbers and the degree to which racism motivates them has been amplified both by the focus the mainstream media gives the subject and deliberate efforts of their political enemies to smear them. If there are 10,000 people in a crowd, and one or two racist signs, media focus on those signs and their holders can give a false impression of the whole crowd.

I didn't discuss the wars with them, but had the impression that they were not enthusiastic and disliked the wars' huge drain on public coffers.

I don't want to make this thread the "Tea Party" thread, but that's my two bits on the subject.
Wally
user 4143008
San Diego, CA
Post #: 86
Sometimes I find it helpful to break big issues down into smaller elements, so here's a suggestion for thinking about Patriarchy and Matriarchy:

Factors of analysis:

I would like to propose that the basic issues to be examined here are behaviors and power relationships.

These Behaviors and Power Relationships occur in three distinguishable sectors: A) private relationships B) organizations C) public interactions.

These sectors can be characterized in terms of male and female relations. (m-m relationships, f-f relationships, m-f relationships; all male organizations, all female organizations, coed organizations; m-m public interactions, f-f public interactions, m-f public interactions)

Behaviors and power relationships can also be split and addressed separately, giving us 18 categories to analyze.

Goals of analysis:

In terms of non-matriarchal and non-patriarchal relations, we should try to discern which aspects of behavior and power relationships arise out of male and female psychology, which aspects arise out of the nature of all human relationships.

In a separate track, we can analyze the aspects of behavior and power relationships asking - to what degree do these lead to a natural dominance or preeminence by one gender or another.

Thirdly we can analyze different behaviors by our moral precepts.

Once we have a full understanding of these aspects of male and female behavior and power relationships, we can try to create new ones.

Building new systems:

We can then look at what rules and norms will create a system of complete gender equality.

Here are some example systems: One sample system might try to incorporate norms common only to coed interactions. Another might use norms common to all-male, all-female, and coed interactions. Another system might create norms based on moral precepts like inclusion, equality, and non-dominance, which might finally look more female than male.

Finally: I would suggest that the standard for judging these systems be the overall public good. The best system would be the one that best serves the public good. Gender dominance would be a secondary factor. Many systems that result in gender equality will do so at high cost to human happiness, or human rights. Others will not be practicable given human nature. These are factors that have undermined every attempt to create "equal" societies along socialist or communist lines.

The final final issue would be implementation: Should new norms be created in society in a top-down manner or a bottom up manner? Should it be done by changing institutions through legislation or by popular action and example (protests, founding new "gender equal" organizations). This is getting ahead of ourselves, but worth considering. Sometimes top down reforms can work out mostly well, as I think civil rights reforms for African Americans have in the US, but most top down social revolutions have been bloodbaths (think the Russian and French revolutions, the Nazi social revolution, the Cultural Revolution and the Khmer Rouge). As a general rule, top down reforms always involve some form of coercion.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy