Why We Need Women To Rule Our World: Part Two

Women Need to Rule Our World

Feminine Logic

War is masculine, and love is feminine.  This is why we need loving and caring women ruling our world.
War is masculine, and love is feminine. This is why we need loving and caring women ruling our world.

Why Are Men Ruling Our World?

In our video, (see above), we'll be looking at how women can gain political power despite the fact that they are far less ruthless and ambitious than men and what they might do with that power to benefit the world.

First we have to look at the question of whether it is inevitable that men will always be the dominant sex. Steven Goldberg argues powerfully for this in his book, The Inevitability of Patriarchy. His reasoning largely focuses on hormones. Men naturally have more testosterone than women. This hormone not only makes men physically stronger than women, but also makes them more aggressive and competitive

Goldberg claims this competitive behaviour will always make men strive harder than most women to gain the high-status roles available in any society. He concludes that men will always outnumber women in most positions of power. To be fair, this is the situation in our world today, and has always been the case throughout recorded history

The depressing aspect of this thesis is that it indirectly suggests that the most aggressive and competitive people will always rule our societies. There is no way out. War will remain the normal way to settle disputes between countries. Throughout history many leaders have thought nothing of invading other countries and if successful, they are celebrated as “great” leaders. Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan and Napoleon are well-known examples

The fact that these 'great ' men have caused the deaths of millions of people doesn't seem to be a problem. We live in a world that worships winners. Had Hitler won the Second World War he would now be considered a great leader simply because his supporters would be writing history.

War and Empire building is seen as so “normal” that only a minority of people seem to question its insanity. Nor do we seem to notice very much that we live in an unfair world where according to the World Bank, over 1 billion people live in conditions of extreme poverty and where there are between 15-20 million starvation- related deaths every year. This is justified because we live in a competitive world of winners and losers. It’s OK to ignore those who live in dire poverty or starve to death because after all they are only “losers” and somehow deserve their fate.

Steven Goldberg may well be right in his views. He explains very clearly why the world is like it is and offers no alternatives. But human beings are supposed to be intelligent animals and not completely controlled by their basic instincts. If we were to use our intellect to think things through, we would have to ask the question. “do we truly want to live in a competitive world of conflict, war and poverty? If the answer is “no” then we need to consider how we can change our world for the better

Hitler and Stalin

Despotic dictators are commonplace in patriarchal history
Despotic dictators are commonplace in patriarchal history

Male Rule

Although men have created a world dominated by conflict, many thinkers have been dissatisfied with this. Many different religious and political systems have been tried in the quest for a fairer, less violent world

Most of these schemes have failed except perhaps for democracy. The reason for its success is that an unpopular government can be voted out of power rather than being overthrown through violent revolution.

If we look at the past, bloody revolutions generally fail to bring about better government, because the successful leaders of such a revolution are almost always men of violence. The military skills needed to defeat the government’s army are not the skills you need to successfully rule a country. Democracy at least gives countries a chance of being ruled by peaceful men. It also allows women to achieve positions of power

Since the early part of the 20th century women living in democratic countries have had the vote and a small minority have even entered government. There they've found themselves joining a boy’s club where they have to play the political game by boy’s rules. Competition, aggression and ruthless back-stabbing is the norm. Back in the 19th century, when the Suffragettes were campaigning for the vote, men told them it was unreasonable to allow women to have political power, because they are too emotional, sentimental and weak to make the tough sensible decisions men can. If we look at the male leaders of the 20th century we can see that they have made many hard choices, but it's arguable whether these choices were entirely rational. Two World Wars, the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by nuclear bombs and the terrifying threat of nuclear war hardly comes into the category of 'sensible'.

The criticism of female politicians as too weak and indecisive existed right through the 20th century. To a certain extent this was disproved between 1979 and 1990 when Margaret Thatcher was the first British female Prime Minister. She was called “The Iron Lady” largely because she was even more ruthless and Machiavellian than most male politicians.

She showed that if a female politician wanted to be a success within a patriarchal political party, she had to act, think and behave like a man. If she had shown herself to be a nurturing and compassionate woman then she would have lost respect in the patriarchal political world and soon been ousted from power. It seems that in order to be successful politically, women have to eradicate what is seen by men as weakness, but is in actual fact their strength; their care and concern for others.

Politicians are not popular with the general public. In many democratic countries it's hard to get people to exercise their right to vote. The reason for this is, as one cynic pointed out. “it doesn’t matter who you vote for, you still end up with a politician”. As a result, many people choose politicians not because they believe they will do any good, but perhaps because they will do the least harm. They have little faith that politicians can create a better world for us all. We keep on voting for male politicians because we seem to have no other choice and anyway, few people think that voting for female politicians, is any better. They seem just as bad as male politicians because they act very much like men. Having suffered under the macho rule of Margaret Thatcher for eleven years, Britain lost its appetite for female leaders and has shown no desire to repeat the experiment. It went back to white middle-aged men in suits and breathed a sigh of relief.

Female politicians throw away a big advantage when they behave like men. Male politicians can't promise to make our world a better place and overcome problems like war and poverty, because they have clearly failed to do this time and time again. All they can deliver is more of the same, whereas, females, if they created a matriarchal political party, could give us a far better future. Within such a party they can behave like nurturing women instead of substitute males.

There are two ways this can be achieved. Women can either, take control of existing patriarchal political parties and turn them into matriarchal ones, or they can start their own matriarchal political party. Both options are difficult but not impossible. Some countries already have a high proportion of females in government and are used to being led by women. This can spread to other countries if women are encouraged and supported into politics by a female-friendly political system. It's a big step, but we could do it if we chose to.

We need the choice of  being able to vote for a Matriarchal political party
We need the choice of being able to vote for a Matriarchal political party
The dog eat dog world, of patriarchal politics and business
The dog eat dog world, of patriarchal politics and business

A Matriarchal Politicial Party

The advantage for women of starting their own matriarchal political party is that they won't have to compete with patriarchal men for power within their own organisation. They can relax and be true to their own nature.

To begin with, they will probably not be very successful. The propaganda that says women are too soft and kind to be good leaders is deep-rooted in society, despite notable exceptions.

For a Matriarchal political party to achieve power, the voting public has to be educated into seeing that a) men have made a mess of the world and b) women will do it better. It may take a long time to do this, because people fear change.

They are still looking for a strong, decisive man who will make all their problems go away even though they know that such a demi-god doesn't exist and never will. Matriarchal women will also have to convince the public they will behave in a responsible way once they are in power. They will need to explain that changes will be made slowly and carefully. If and when they do achieve power, they must avoid alienating any sections of society, concentrate on being very good administrators and gently turn the country from patriarchy to matriarchy over a long period of time. A great deal of patience is required.

Surprisingly, a matriarchal political party will not just attract female voters. Many men will vote for it as well, while there will be women who oppose it. This is because patriarchal and matriarchal attitudes are found in both sexes. Some of the strongest supporters of patriarchy are women and yet many more men than women advocate matriarchy. Why would that be? Surely men want to be ruled by their own sex and have a chance at power themselves? It's true for many men of course, but there are millions who hate the fact that we live in a hierarchical society, where you have to claw your way to the top by standing on the heads of your competitors, then watch your back for the rest of your life as younger men come up behind you to steal your throne. Only a few men are winners. Most find themselves bullied and ordered around by other men, who have no interest in their welfare. The prospect of being governed by women who actually care what happens to people can be very attractive.

Matriarchy V Feminism

A number of women who are opposed to matriarchy are feminists, who believe in sexual equality. Although they think it’s wrong for men to dominate women and rule the world, they claim it would be equally wrong for women to do the same

There's a problem with this. In a government or political party where there are roughly the same numbers of men and women, there is nothing to stop men competing fiercely with women for power. As we know, they are very good at this. In this situation, women have the choice of allowing men to appropriate the most important jobs in government, or becoming as competitive and ruthless as men, like many of today’s female politicians

Women cannot dominate the world in the same way men have done. Historically, men have ruled countries through force and violence, and used their male armies to conquer other countries. Women have never done this. At no time in history has an army of Amazon warriors sought to conquer the world. There has been no female Hitler. It is equally unlikely that a matriarchal government will rule as a dictatorship and retain power by using an army of young men who kill or torture anyone who opposes the government’s rule. Most women are too caring and empathetic to follow such a course

So matriarchal women would find it impossible to impose their rule by violence and intimidation, as men often do. They can only succeed by democratic means. If the people are dissatisfied with their rule, they can be voted out of power. This means a matriarchal political party has to prove to the public that it can govern a country better than male-dominated ones. Considering men’s record in ruling our world, this may not be too difficult. Although women find it hard to be as competitive and ruthless as men, men find it equally tough to be nurturing and caring. Once the public experience a maternal and compassionate matriarchal government, many of them will become very reluctant to go back to being ruled by selfish ambitious males.

A Matriarchal World

It has to be admitted that not all governments are democratic. Some countries are ruled by dictators in one form or another; some are hardly ruled at all and are the battleground for violent warlords. How can these countries become matriarchal?

We believe that once we have even one successful matriarchal government, knowledge of this will seep out to patriarchal dictatorships. In the past oppressive governments could easily control the media in their countries, but the growth of the Internet has made this almost impossible. The people in these countries will see the huge contrast between how they are living and how it is in a matriarchal country, and will begin to demand the same for themselves

A patriarchal dictatorship can only respond to public unrest with even greater oppression, which fans the flame of desire for change and often leads to bloody civil war. Usually, this only means swapping one set of violent men for another lot who are just as bad, but if the reason for the upheaval is the desire for matriarchal government, it can be a different story. The new leaders can renege on their promises and move to patriarchal business as usual, but if the desire for real change is strong enough, more revolutions will follow until that change happens.

The presence of just a few Matriarchal governments can begin to destabilise all patriarchal governments on the planet just as the desire for democracy has slowly spread to countries oppressed by violent, repressive rulers. Eventually, and this may take a long, long, time, we will come to see that being governed by intelligent, compassionate and nurturing women is a whole lot more sensible than letting men carry on creating havoc and suffering to feed their selfish need for power and status. It's a no-brainer, really.

Feminism, Femdom and Matriarchy

Femdom and Matriarchal Politics

© 2011 William Bond

More by this Author

  • Teaching men how to love

    Most women do not need to learn how to love, because they have a powerful nurturing instinct. This instinct is not so strong in men and many end up not knowing how to love. Unless taught by a woman.

  • Why We Need Women To Rule Our World: Part One

    Five thousand years of recorded history shows us that men do a terrible job in ruling our world, creating a world of conflict, war and poverty. So the obvious solution is to have women rule instead.

  • The Animal Planet Mermaid Hoax

    So why did Animal Planet spend so much money creating this Hoax? It must of cost a lot of money for the special effects and hiring actors and script writers to do it. So what was their motivation?

Comments 29 comments

A person 4 years ago

Hi, I can agree with the possibility that women should rule the world, however, I think this article is not very well thought through. You must consider manipulated media. In a one on one situation with man vs woman men are stronger, which makes it easier for a man to dominate a woman physically.

Do not be fooled, please pay attention to lesser publicized new, you will fine stories of women murdering their husbands and children in brutal manners. One woman used a chainsaw on her husband, another put her child through a wood-chipper. Past female rulers like Cleopatra were very ruthless and vicious. Women are more security minded than men.

Not all men are violent, and not all women are violent. Do some deep research and you may find far more ruthless instances of violent women throughout history.

Having said this, women are indeed more security based and think differently than men in other instances as well. I personally think matriarchy is the way to go, but do not think there will be less war with a woman ruler. Maybe we would have shorter wars, but NOT less war. A female ruler is more likely to go straight for the throat and end the problem more quickly. This makes a more secure situation for the more security based gender.

This is just the beginning of my rant, and I agree that women would make better rulers. Please be more realistic about this though. Peaceful women want no war, non peaceful woman can be twice as ruthless as men. I have specifically studied this, so do some research. You will find out fascinating reasons why people like Joan of Arc were remembered. Joan of Arc was nurturing to her people, but what a lot of documentation doesn't mention is that Joan of Arc lacked mercy for her enemies.

She was an extremely brilliant tactician, though her tactics were quick and vicious. She, as I mentioned, also went straight for the throat, but it resulted in quick resolution to battles.

Glenn Stok profile image

Glenn Stok 3 years ago from Long Island, NY

This was an interesting discussion of yours and very well-written. It would be nice to assume that the world would be a better place if women world. And I wish that could be the case. You definitely made some strong arguments. The problem I see, however, is that many people in power are more interested in satisfying a certain class and they function on that level. I don't think it would make any difference if they were a man or a woman. They both will have the need to answer to those who put them in power.

Of course we do have examples of women in power now and I'm not really seeing any difference.

Besides what I said, I do find your discussion extremely interesting and it definitely makes me think about other situations. For example, imagine if the queen of Spain had sent a woman instead of sending Columbus in 1492. Would she have killed so many Indians as Columbus had?

I gave you a well-deserved vote up.

wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

Hi Glenn, thank you for your response. Like you say one women in a position of power is not going to make a lot of difference. We see this clearly in the case of Margaret Thatcher. That is why I am advocating matriarchal political parties where women are not competing against men for power within the party. This will allow women to be themselves and not having to act and behave like men, like women have to do in patriarchal political parties.

I agree that had Columbus been a woman it wouldn't make a lot of difference, because even if she refrained from killing and enslaving Indians. The men who came after Columbus wouldn't have such qualms. So to make a difference women have to take over every aspect of government and power. And this is only possible through the will of the people, for them to vote for and support a matriarchal government rather than a patriarchal government.

tuteramanda profile image

tuteramanda 3 years ago from beijing china

who is stronger,who dominate the world .so you just like a brain washed men.whether women will rule the world not depend on your article,it depends on the social evolve.

wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

It would be great if just one article could bring about Women ruling the world Tuteramada. Social evolution is created by the thoughts and ideas of people and this is my contribution to this.

tuteramanda profile image

tuteramanda 3 years ago from beijing china

Social evolution is created by the thoughts and ideas of people is really joke me ,social evolution is created by the science development,why there

is no feminsim in middle age?in acient time?because the whole society does not allow it,the insdustrial evolution and scientific revolution let feminism and empower women become possible

wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

The industrial and scientific revolutions happened because people were willing to think in new ways, and the same is true of the feminist revolution. Any change in society requires some people to question traditional thinking and bring in new thoughts and ideas.

tuteramanda profile image

tuteramanda 3 years ago from beijing china

I GIVE YOU A LINK ,you can read it carefully ,it may inspire you . http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4b0ca5850101198c.ht...

wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

I have read some of your link which mostly seems to be about feminism. I have to say I am not a feminist, which is all about sexual equality. My ideas are more direct. Men do a really terrible job in ruling our world, because they are far more aggressive, ruthless and violent than what men are. So when men rule they tend to create a unfair world of conflict, violence and war. Women on the whole are more loving and caring people than men. So this is why it would be better for us all if loving and caring women ruled our world.

tuteramanda profile image

tuteramanda 3 years ago from beijing china

awesome,why my girlfriend often beat me not i beat her?好吧,君子和而不同

wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

Although individual women can be violent, on the whole women are not as violent as men. If you look at human history and what is happening today, more than 99% of all violence is committed by men. It is men who fight in wars, commit genocide and the vast majority of violent crime is also committed by men.

capon profile image

capon 3 years ago from Upminster, Essex, United Kingdom

Surely Mankind is at its best when both sexes act in unity? Tony

As an aside, I was taken back to the late 70's when it was "politically incorrect" to be a Man, unless you apologised for it in advance.

Pool Of Thoughts profile image

Pool Of Thoughts 3 years ago from Southern Ohio

Wabond, you stated this "Men do a really terrible job in ruling our world, because they are far more aggressive, ruthless and violent than what men are. So when men rule they tend to create an unfair world of conflict, violence and war. Women on the whole are more loving and caring people than men. So this is why it would be better for us all if loving and caring women ruled our world."

Interesting but I have a question. Who will exterminate all of the men while women rule? If the men aren't exterminated then who will keep them in control? If there is rebellion, who will put it down? Who will carry out justice? What a concept. Loving, caring women who will conduct the world in peace.

Not to sound costic, but if women were so loving and caring they would be at home raising their children to serve Jesus Christ and guiding the home. That is the backbone of our country that no longer exists. Blame it on men, and I think you'd be right to do so, however it isn't because the men are incapable and outright brutes. Its because they left their first Love and went lusting after the god of this world.

Chuck Bluestein profile image

Chuck Bluestein 3 years ago from Morristown, AZ, USA

There was a time after Jesus died when the bible did not exist. It had not been written yet. So there were different groups with different beliefs about getting more Christians. The more violent the group, the better chance that it had of winning.

Things have been going the way you want them to go for a while. More men are getting blue collar jobs and more women are getting white collar jobs. Also at one time women in America could not vote. Now they can vote. That is big. Women could not vote. Now they can vote. Also the more evolved the man is, the better he is at recognizing a woman's ability at doing mental work.

The brain doctor, Dr. Amen, has a new book called Unleash the Power of the Female Brain. Maybe Schwarzenegger should write a book called Unleash the Power of the Male Muscle to Stop Being a Girly Man. One of my best friends, Jen, voted for Jill Stein for president.

wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

Hi Capon, Yes it would be great if men and women could work together equality but men's competitive instincts will not allow this to happen. The whole of patriarchal history shows us that men will oppress anyone they they see as weaker than themselves. If we continue to allow men to rule our world then war, poverty and oppression will continue.

wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

Hi Pool Of Thoughts, Drastic measures like extermination are not needed. Although men are far more aggressive and competitive than women, they are also very obedient to those in authority. We can see this is the military where soldiers will obey orders to face near certain death charging a machine gun post. If you put women in positions of authority in our world then men will obey them. All is required is to have matriarchal political parties and for the people vote them into power.

wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

I agree Chuck Bluestein, while leaders of countries were warlords women didn't stand a chance of getting into power. Now, with democracy it is possible. The only problem for women in our present democratic system is that women have to join patriarchal political parties and play by the boy's rules. This is why I am advocating matriarchal political parties where women do not have to act and behave like men to get respect and promotion.

Pool Of Thoughts profile image

Pool Of Thoughts 3 years ago from Southern Ohio

Well, I believe you are going to get your wish wabond. It will be anything but peace though. It will be the most cruel time the earth has ever seen. In the natural I must say you are using a very broad stereotype of both sexes. In the spiritual, you have no idea what you are saying. Where does the Word of God place here? How can we have peace on the earth without the Prince of Peace? Women who are not positionally placed according to scripture will be no better than men in ruling the world. I would say it would be worse. This world is immersed in perversion of Truth and it will only get worse. People are seeking something to help and refusing the only Remedy. I guess its always been that way though.

The way up is down. The true power and peace that people seek comes from humility and obedience to God's plans, not women rising to power. I think I've just been given an idea for a new hub. :)

wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

Hi Pool of Thought, the scriptures were written by men to simply justify male rule. As Jesus once said, "you know them by their fruits" and the fruits of male rule has been war, conflict, oppression and poverty.

seidanin profile image

seidanin 3 years ago

Hi Wabond! Nowadays there is a sophistrical technique used in middle-to-low level debates. which you just used perfectly. They start with generalized describing of a trendy problem supported or even created by media which in fact exists in parallel dimension of information, and then move to specific argumentation of their choice. You recited some axiomatic statements such as "over 1 billion people live in conditions of extreme poverty", " we live in a competitive world of winners and losers" etc, such things that no one can disagree on. No one who doesn't have a habit of connecting words they read with semantics of these words.

Again, "1 billion people LIVE in poverty" or "1 billion people ARE FORCED TO LIVE in poverty"? "We LIVE in crooked world" or "we ARE MADE TO BELIEVE WE LIVE in crooked world"? See, the real thing stays the same, African kids plastered with flies and billions of humans suffering from various injustice do exist, but the initial statement decides the logic.

Now, the question is why is this world such a place? According to the law of energy conservation if there is evil there must be someone to blame. Then who to blame? It depends on two things:

How we identify ourselves

Are we satisfied with ourselves

Identification is the primary associative reaction. What is the first thing that comes over my mind when i reflect on myself? Suppose a poorly educated Buddhist peasant from Burma, who strongly believes in what generations of his ancestors believed and thinks his world outlook is the one and only correct. He sees injustice, poverty and despair all around so who to blame? Right, Muslim peasant from vicinal village which he will burn to ashes at the first opportunity. Another example, German middle class guy, well-fed university graduate whos consciousness is forced into guilt and self-flagellation. His voice is silenced and his money are constantly taken to nowhere. He is taught hesitance, self-questioning and frenetic self-criticism. He has nothing to be proud of, nothing sacred to minister, he is lost and destroyed. So when he sees full of life, energetic, courageous Muslim Turks his mind twists and he embraces Islam as an escape from terrifying void of his own distorted culture.

Almost everyone regardless of cultural, social, spiritual background is locked up in this mental cage. Every step humanity walks along the path of so-called progress takes us away from nature, her laws and her way of things (in my mother tongue word "nature" has female gender). I understand your point, Wabond, and i see the difference between your approach and what is called "feminist philosophy". Greatest mistake to be made in attempts of analyzing human nature is separation of Woman and Man. Look, this perversion can be seen all around nowadays - women are from venus, men are from mars, eat pray love, sex and the city, every single glossy magazine teach us men and women are qualitatively different, they can be compared as different species or even entities, that there is eternal opposition so let the war begin!

In the field of language this programming is done through replacement of "Sexes" with "Genders" concerning human beings. First of all we are HUMANS and that "male-female" veterinarian sorting which is ok for cows, pigs and dogs is simply humiliating for us. Woman and man are not separated anyhow, they are two elements of a whole, beginning in each other and becoming each other. Everything which seem different in them has common nature and is inalienable from the whole.

You can list everything what you may call mistakes of the humanity, but the only reason for this is a lack of understanding of true progress and true evolution of Human happening not in production tools and machines but in mind and consciousness of humanity. You probably will not put a toddler into jail for accidental destruction of your favorite porcelain vase? Let him grow, love and cherish him, you will see the result. But do not separate his body parts for the sake of housewares security.

The Demiurge, call it Nature, God or whatever designed us in a certain way. Let us all go on, "make mistakes", "correct them" and evolve. We are all one.

wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

Hi Seidanin, Men are very, very good at making excuses for why they make such a bad job in ruling our world. But in the end, the fact remains is that we live in a world of conflict, war, violence and suffering. And it doesn't have to be like that. Yes, we do make mistakes and the obvious one is allowing men to rule our world. And the solution to that mistake, is to allow women to rule instead.

PetervandenBerg 3 years ago

I want to give some critical notes on this post:

First, to make your point you suggest that the present world is such a bad, terrible place. Is that what you really experience? We live in a democratic society with a lot of freedom and possibilities. Within Western society we have had no war since the Second World War and there are no signs that this will change. Other societies have yet a long way to go, but there are no reasons why they will not succeed in the long run. So, you gave a distorted view of reality.

Second, this free and democratic society with a strong focus on human rights has mainly been developed by men and not by women. Of course, women have always had an important contribution to society, such as maintaining cohesion and raising children, but men made the structural institutions. So, I would say 'Never change a winning team'.

Third, men are indeed more competitive and aggressive because they have more testosterone, but values that are more important in modern politics are not bound to gender. In fact, the famous people you rely on in your first Hub about matriarchy are all men. Also, women less advocate matriarchy than men, because they are more for equality. Why don't you follow their wisdom, when you believe in the stupidity of your own gender?

Fourth, the many statements on female superiority in the media harm the self-concept of men, especially that of boys, spreading hatred. Boys are educated in a feminized system with no opportunities to develop their male qualities and their noisy, restless and independent behavior is called bad. Besides, they have no male role models at school. As a result, boys are in general far behind girls in education. I am worrying for my five grandsons.

So, I see you as an idealist who tries to improve the world, but I think that you are a bit naïve making you a danger for society.

PetervandenBerg 3 years ago

Fifth, I forgot to warn for radical feminists who may take the power in a matriarchy. For people who don't know them, this is a part of the manifesto they subscribe:

"There remains to civic minded, responsible, thrill seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex." (Solanas)

Of course, radical feminists form only a small part of society, but extremists can become very powerful as we saw with the Nazis. Also the communists made a revolution to create a paradise on earth for the working class, but created the most totalitarian regime you can imagine. The point is: Power corrupts! So, I would like to warn against this well-meant propaganda to let women overthrow the government with the promise of a new paradise

wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

Well we certainly know that power corrupt with male dominated governments, that has been proven time and time again. Whether the same is true with female dominated governments has not been tested. We have nothing to lose by having female dominated governments and everything to gain if they can rule countries better than what men can do.

wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

As for saying that we haven't had a war since the second world war, I'm really surprised at such a statement. Yes, Europe hasn't had a war, (though Yugoslavia was part of Europe until civil war broke it up in the 1980s.) America and Europe has waged war in many other countries of the world. (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq etc) War is total insanity so why are we still continue to do this?

I certainly agree that democracy is better than dictatorship, but I wouldn't say it is working very well. People are very disillusioned with politics and politicians.

I agree that women tend to advocate equality rather than matriarchy, but I think the main reason for this is that they are frightened of men. Men are the violent sex, and I know many women think that if they were to demand matriarchy, men will turn against them and inflict far more violence onto women, than they already do. Equality sound reasonable and women hope men will not turn violent if they demand this.

As for men expressing their masculinity. Men have far more opportunity than they ever had through organized sport. Men can watch competitive games on TV, play competitive video games and even play sport, if they choose to do so. It is far better for men express masculinity like this, than in wars, street gangs or beating up women.

PetervandenBerg 3 years ago

Indeed, the Western world started the last fifty years some wars in other countries and I agree that this is bad, but instead of arguing against the rest, I would like to show you some general trends that make a radical switch to matriarchy undesirable.

1. Less wars than ever. In contrast to the public opinion official reports indicate that nowadays there are less wars than ever in history. This and other positive developments suggests that we are on the right path and that we have to go on this way.

2. Decreasing masculinity. Longitudinal studies show that in the Western world the masculinity of men is decreasing even to a point that this endangers the fertility of sperm. As a consequence, men are becoming less violent and competitive and there are less reasons to submit them to women.

3. Radicalization of feminism. Now, women have equal or even more rights, although they are still in less powerful positions, radical feminists seek new arguments for their actions. Search on internet with term like 'radfem' and you will be horrified not only by the language but also by the statements such as 'the number of men should be reduced to 10 percent of the human population'.

All together, I don't think that it is wise to do such an experiment as you propose with unknown consequences for our civilization. However, I agree that the so-called feminine qualities are important in politics.

wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

I think the idea that there is less wars nowadays would be disputed, there are a lot of unreported wars all over the world like in Burma and New Guinea. The largest is the Congo war where some claim 5 million people have died while other say it is 3 million people. It depends on how the figures are collected and the bias of those who do this.

Yes, I know the ingestion of plastics and insecticide are interfering with men's hormones and perhaps in the long term, men might become more feminine but again that is in dispute and this may or may not be true.

I'm not sure about the radicalization of women either, many feminists are complaining that since the 1970s the women's movement hasn't progressed as it should. It is true women now are getting better school and university qualifications than men, but this so far is not reflected in the sort of jobs women should getting with these qualifications. There is still a lot of discrimination against women in the workplace.

I don't think electing a Matriarchal government is a dangerous experiment. Unlike men, it is very unlikely women can get into power through force and violence. The only way a matriarchal government can get into power, is to be elected. If they turn out to be a failure they will be voted out of power in the next election. So the only way they can stay in power, is to prove to the voters that they can rule the country better than what men can do.

limpet profile image

limpet 2 years ago from London England

If you think long enough about this topic the fact is that only one person can rule a nation. In this 21st century a few nations have been ruled by a Queen or governed by a Lady President. The chances of every single country in the world being ruled by a Woman is just that it will never happen in our life time. Joan of Arc didn't rule France but led forces against an enemy. Cordelia was a British Queen and led Her supporters against usurpers to the throne. Madame Nhu was not an elected President but was undoubtedly the powerbroker within the Saigon regime.

limpet profile image

limpet 10 months ago from London England

On the B.B.C. Parliamentary channel an honourable lady spoke from the opposition benches at length in the House of Commons on the disparity in sentencing of perpetrators in rape cases involving under or over a certain age. I listened intently for about an hour but not once did the honourable lady mention false accusations or the fact that males can be raped.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article