A. A community or country ruled by Women. Patriarchy likewise is a society ruled by men.
Q. Would matriarchy therefore be exactly like patriarchy except it would be women ruling instead of men?
A. No, because men and women are different physically, mentally and emotionally. So a female dominated government would therefore be very different to a male dominated government.
Q. This is not what Feminism says; Feminism states that men and women are the same.
A. Feminism had a very good reason for making this claim. Patriarchy justified male dominance by claiming that women were intellectually inferior to men, and were too emotional to make sensible decisions. To counter this; Mary Wollstonecraft in 1792 in her book A Vindication of the Rights of Women refuted these claims and stated boldly that men and women were exactly the same. This has become feminist dogma ever since. Today, in the 21st century very few men would dare make the claim that women were intellectually inferior to men, so in Western countries at least, this battle has been won.
The problem for Feminist is that modern scientific studies show that men and women are in fact different. Many authors have written about this and the most popular book on this subject is; Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. by John Gray.
Feminists don’t like this; because Feminism is all about sexually equality, so they need to continue to claim that men and women are the same. Whereas these new scientific studies support the claims of Matriarchy, which state that; the differences between men and women; will make women far better rulers of our world, than men.
Q. Why would women make better rulers of the world than men?
A. Men do a really terrible job in ruling our world. Men have ruled our world throughout recorded history over the last five thousand years, and this has been a history of continuous warfare, genocide, injustice, torture and widespread poverty. So why do men inflict this suffering onto the whole world?
If we look at nature we find the majority of male animals fight and compete with each other for dominance. For instance, very spring, bulls, stags and rams head butt each other to establish who is the strongest male, and the strongest get to mate with the females.
The human male has the same instincts, but instead of fighting with horns, claws or teeth, men fight each other with spears, swords, guns, rockets, aircraft and even nuclear weapons.
Men’s completive instincts also create a world of winners and losers, with the winners having power and wealth while the losers are poor and powerless. This is true in every patriarchal society in the world, where power and wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small minority, of alpha men.
Women unlike men have a powerful maternal and nurturing instinct. In the animal world we find mothers have a powerful instinct to bear children and look after them until they are able to look after themselves. In the human mother this instinct has to be very strong, as unlike all other animals, the human baby is totally helpless in the first few years of its life. Also it take nearly 20 years for the human being to become fully grown, so the human mother has give lot of commitment into bring up her young.
Any government dominated by women will be strongly motivated by this powerful nurturing instinct, in the same way a male dominated government is motivated by there competitive instincts. So a Matriarchal government will be strongly focused on the welfare of the children they rule. They would ensure that all the children in the country they rule would not be brought up in poverty and ignorance. Also, because of this, a feminine government would be strongly motivated to eliminate poverty. Women will not have the same interest in warfare as what men have. They may see the need of a strong military force in which to defend themselves, but would have no great urge to go to war. Like we see in the recent invasion of Iraq by USA and UK.
Throughout recorded history men have constantly tried to ‘solve’ disputes between countries, religions and different political systems through warfare. As we can see in the cases of Crusader wars between Christians and Moslems, the many wars between Roman Catholics and Protestants, as well as the internal wars in Islam between Sunny and Shiite Moslems that is fuelling the conflict in Iraq today. There have been also political wars, like that between communism and capitalism in the 20th century. War has also started for another reasons, like one ruler decided he wanted to loot and conquer other countries. As we can see in the case of Alexander the Great, Julius Cesar, Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler.
It is natural and normal for most male animals to compete against each other. As previously mentioned every spring, male goats, rams, bulls, stags will bang heads together to see who is the strongest, and it is the biggest and strongest gets to mate with the females. So we can see a powerful desire within all males to be the biggest, strongest and most of all, to be the winner. What is more, male animals become the winners through violence. For instance male hippopotamuses have been known to inflict horrendous wounds on each other, while bull elephants and lions have been known to kill each other.
Likewise, men have been known to kill each other fighting over a woman. This means that in his masculine mind, fighting and using violence is the ‘normal’ way to settle disputes. This means that rival countries ruled by men, will have a desire to test each other out, to see who is the strongest, and they will ‘naturally’ do this through violence and warfare.
This has been taken to the extreme in the 20th century, in the First World War, (1914-18) 10 million people died or went missing. (Historians are completely baffled about what brought about this war and don’t agree on what caused it.) In the Second World War with the aerial bombardment of towns and cities the civilian casualties was enormous, and about 52 million people were killed. These figures don’t include the millions of people maimed, as well as physically and mentally disabled, because of their experience in the war. Not to mention those who lost sons, husbands and other relations.
WW2 Hiroshima Atom Bomb Aftermath
These figures were boosted by the destruction of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by nuclear bombs. This to lead to the cold-war between the USSR and NATO, where both sides produced and deployed enough nuclear weapons to destroy the whole of civilization many times over. This war became a real show of strength as both sides continued an arms and technology race to see who had the most deadly weapons. As the result the USSR was spending half of its gross domestic product on military spending while the USA has spent 19 Trillion dollars on the military since WW2. And for what? Why was it impossible for both sides to come together to see the stupidly of this war?
The reason is that the male leaders from both sides were driven by their masculine instincts to compete and see who was the strongest. We are very fortunate that they managed to resist taking their instincts to the extreme, because they realized that if they had a nuclear war, they would have annihilated each other. The USA called their nuclear strategy M.A.D that stands for Mutual Assured Destruction, so they clearly realised the insanity of the situation. Yet in spite of this, the cold war continued for over 30 years with the whole world under threat of nuclear annihilation.
Both sides in all wars claim they have no choice but to go to war, because if you are not prepared to arm yourself, then you are open to attack from countries who do have an army and military weapons. So even countries like Switzerland who managed to stay neutral during both the First and Second World War has a law, making it compulsory for young men do military training. And during the cold war, they built vast underground shelters for its population in case of nuclear attack.
This then means that if we cannot trust other countries not to build up military strength and use it to conquer other countries, then war is inevitable and will always be with us. Yet this is only true while men rule our world. While we have men in positions of power in countries of the world, they will want to compete with other countries using violence and warfare, because their competitive instincts push them in that direction.
So it means if we want to eliminate warfare from our world, we have to also eliminate male rule and have women rule every country in the world.
Men like to proudly proclaim they are the most intelligent animals on this earth. (Women off course are not mentioned). And to support this claim of great intelligence they point to the great technological achievements like, motorcars, aeroplanes, space-rockets, computers and nuclear weapons. Yet in spite of these great achievements, men have totally failed to eliminate poverty and starvation from the world.
When male leaders are questioned about this, they are able to give many excuses, and to be fair there are many problems in solving worldwide poverty. Yet when you look at the problems of putting a man on the moon in the 1969, you find men do have the brains and problem solving skills to overcome the most difficult problems. So if that is the case, why haven’t men used their great intelligence and ingenuity to solve the problems of poverty?
The difficulty is not intelligence but motivation. The male dominated countries in the world are not in competition with each other to see who has less people living in poverty. Unlike the space race between the USSR and USA, where both countries spent billions of dollars and used their best brains and best technology to make it possible to take a manned rocket to the Moon. And for what? There is nothing on the Moon. Many people assumed that when this was done, they would go further and set up bases on the Moon, but this didn’t happen. Both countries soon cut back their spending and all we have to show for this billion-dollar project, is a few lumps of moon rock.
So if this is the case, why did both countries spend so much money doing this? Because it was a competition, and when the competition was over and there was a clear winner and loser, then both sides quickly lost interest.
Yet as many people have pointed out: Why can’t the billions spent on putting a man on the Moon or the trillions of dollars spent on the military; be used to elevate poverty in our world? There is never a satisfactory answer to this.
To justify the vast spending of putting a man on the moon or the military spending, it has been suggested that problems needed to solve making something like the Saturn Rocket or making clever weapons, has boosted the progress of our technology. So without the competition between the cold-war super powers, technology wouldn't be as advance, as it is today. The problem with that argument is that even with our advance technology it is still not being used to overcome poverty and starvation. Also the technology in putting men on the Moon is not appropriate for solving problems like poverty. This can be done using a low level of technology. It is not technology that is the problem, but the will and motivation to do this.
Inventing clever missiles that can penetrate the defences of the enemy or putting a man on the moon, is exciting to the masculine mind. Relieving poverty is boring and is more a woman’s concern.
What makes poverty worse throughout the world is overpopulation. The human population of Earth reached 1 billion in 1804, 2 billion in 1927, 3 billion in 1959, 4 billion in 1974 and 5 billion in late 1986. On October 12th 1999, the human population of Earth reached 6 billion.
Today many people claim the population problem has been solved. In India and China the two most populated areas in the world, they had to use very draconian laws to keep the population down. In India they even forcibly sterilized women, while in China, couples are restricted to only one child. An unfortunate by-product of these laws is that both countries have a culture that makes having a son necessity.
As the result, female foetuses are being aborted or baby girls are being murdered. And now a generation on, both countries have too many men and not enough women. This could spark a population crash in the next few generations, as there will be too few women to produce children.
In many third world countries the population is being restricted by the Malthus theory. Thomas Malthus in 1798 pointed out that left unrestricted, human populations would grow until they became too large to be supported by the food available. At this point the population would be limited by famine and warfare, as people fight over food.
This is exactly what is happening in Africa today. In places like the Sudan; war and genocide is killing millions of people as men fight over scarce food resources.
So we can see how the world population problem is being solved. Draconian laws are restricting population growth in India and China and war, genocide, disease and famine are restricting population growth in Africa. The problem is with these ‘solutions’ is that they cause horrendous suffering to the population. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to imagine the suffering of an African family living in a famine area and watching their children die of starvation, thirst or disease caused by drinking contaminated water. Or the fear of militias or a warlord coming into their village to steal or kill everyone simply because the villagers belong to a different ethnic group.
We can also look at the fate of Chinese men who now have little chance of ever getting married because there are too few women in the country. Or the fate of Chinese women who have been kidnapped and forced to live with a man she doesn't know. This is because in China today, people pay criminal gangs to kidnap women for them to forcefully marry their sons.
Yet there is a far more humane solution the world’s population explosion, and that is to give women equal rights. Europe up to the 20th century also had problems of overpopulation, but then women began to demand equal rights, and this was to have a dramatic effect on population size. Up until 20th century, the Church had strict rules about the use of contraception and abortion. It was also a rule that a wife could not refuse to have sex with her husband. And by law a husband had a legal right to rape his wife, if he so wished. The result was that women didn’t have control over their own bodies and found themselves forced to produce children every year, whether they wanted them or not.
Then as women became empowered in the 20th century they began to use birth-control methods and found they had the right to have as many children as they wanted. This was even true in strongly Roman Catholic countries like Italy and Ireland where women were willing to defy the Church’s teachings on birth control. The result was that most women restricted themselves to about 2-3 children and the population stabilised and even went down in some countries.
This then begs the question; why did the Christian and Islamic religions make such crazy laws that force women to have children every year and cause a population explosion? Some people put this down to Church dogma but in the USSR an atheist state, they also greatly encouraged women to have more children and even gave them medals for the number of children they produced. So what is going on? Why do male dominated countries want women to produce lots of children? We can understand this through demise of the ancient Greek state of Sparta.
Sparta was a powerful military State where the young boys were trained to be soldiers from a very early age. So well trained were the Sparta men that they frequently beat armies far larger then themselves. In the famous battle of Thermopylae, in 480 BC, a force of 300 Spartans stopped a Persian army of a million troops. Yet they had one weakness, which was finally exploited by their enemies.
The freedom given to Spartan women was in complete contrast to its neighbour Athens and other Greek states. Although Athens was the birthplace of democracy, the men completely subjugated their women. So although Sparta was a very successful military state and defeated Athens in 404 BC, it seems its military downfall was caused by the freedom it gave to its women. In Athens and other Ancient Greek states women didn't have control over their own bodies. So they couldn't refuse sex from their husbands or use contraception and were forced to have large numbers of children. In Sparta on the other hand, women had complete control over their own bodies and could refuse her husband or any other man, sexual intercourse, (it seems the Spartan women even had the freedom to openly have sex with other men). They were also free to use contraception. This then means they were free to decide how many children she wanted to have.
As the result, over many generations the population of the surrounding Greek states grew, while the population in Sparta declined. Resulting in Sparta becoming heavily outnumbered and lost its final battle to overwhelming numbers.
This lesson was not lost on other patriarchal states that have ever since kept their populations high, for fear of being outnumbered in times of war. The success of the Roman Empire was caused by fact they were more successful in forcing their women to breed every year, than other patriarchal states. So they had very large armies of young men and were able to outnumber their opponents.
In modern times we still have the same problem. In Western counties where women have greater freedom, they also have stable populations while inhabitants in countries where women are still subjugated, keeping on growing at an alarming rate. Fortunately the Western countries are very powerful both economically and militarily and so are not likely to be conquered by a much larger military force in the foreseeable future. Like what happened to the Spartans. So it means that equal rights for women are dependent on the technological power of modern warfare. Where the destructive power of modern weapons is so great, that very large armies are not as important as the technological capabilities of the military.
Yet the threat is still there. All Western countries are subjected to immigration of people from overpopulated countries, wanting to live in the West. Businesses want this, because they can use these immigrants as cheap labour so they encourage them to keep on coming into Western countries. Unfortunately they mostly come from very patriarchal countries where women have few rights, (this being the reason why they are poor and their own countries are overpopulated). While the immigrants are in the minority this is not a problem, as after a generation or two the women learn that they have the same rights as Western women. But if these immigrants were to come in too quickly they could overwhelmed the native population and impose strict patriarchal ideas onto them. So it could happen that all the gains make by Feminists during the 20th century could go in reverse by uncontrolled immigration from very strict patriarchal countries.
Patriarchy is also a danger to the planet in other ways: Back in the 19th century Swedish scientists worked out what would happen if industry kept on pumping out Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere and predicted this would create a greenhouse effect and warm up our planet. Yet this was completely ignored. Then in the 1950s scientists produced scientific instruments that could measure the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere and could measure it increasing and showed direct evidence this was happening through industry, but again this was ignored.
Then in the 1980s and 90s there has been increasing evidence of global warming as scientists can now show how the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are melting. Yet the USA government, the ruler of biggest polluting country in the world is still not convinced. Other governments of the world are convinced but still do very little about it. So why?
To understand this we have to look the mentality of male rulers and industrial leaders.
Because men are competitive then what motivates them is being winners, ‘The Number One”. So to male rulers the important thing is to gain or keep power. In democratic countries it means that what happens in the next election is all important.
So he knows that to restrict the use of motorcars or aeroplanes, because of the pollutions they give off, would lose him votes. If he is a dictator then the main focus would be making sure he is not assassinated or any other leader will challenge him for power. So all male leaders will be so caught up in their power games, that global warming will not figure very importantly in their priorities.
The same is true of the industries that pollute our planet. As businessmen say; “it is the bottom line that counts”.
In the competitive world of business, businessmen know when they are doing better than their competitors when they generate larger profits than them. So in their list of priorities, profits count for far more than the survival of the planet.
This means that governments are only going to do something about global warming if it is going to win them votes, while industry will only change their technology and production methods if it is going to be profitable.
Saving the planet it seems are not high on their list of priorities.
What many scientists and industrialist claim is that technology and industry has got us into this mess but it will this that will get us out and solve the problem. And to be fair there is some truth in this. Cleaner technology in producing power without Carbon Dioxide is what could save the planet, but as usual, the motivation is not there.
The fact is that our male political and industrial leaders just don’t care enough to do anything about global warming until it is too late. This is because trying to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions doesn't evoke the competitive instincts of men.
If on the other hands our world was in danger of say colliding with a asteroid or comet, then male leaders would become very motivate because you would have the excitement of sending out a nuclear missiles to blow it up. Though unfortunately scientists have discovered that the best way to deal with a asteroid heading for our planet, would be to land a rocket on it and use its engines to slightly change its course, so it would miss the Earth. Which is very boring solution, compared with the option of sending up nuclear weapons to blast it out of the sky.
Likewise there is no excitement, competition or profit in just reducing pollution.
The military cannot go out and blast the CO2 out of the atmosphere. Industry doesn't make a profit in reducing CO2 emissions. And as yet, politicians don’t get votes cleaning up our biosphere, so where is the motivation? The fact that greenhouse gasses could warm up our planet to the degree of destroying most of the life on our planet, it seems, is not motivation enough. It would need female leadership to care about the planet and the life on it to do something about this before it is too late.
The masculine world rewards aggression competitiveness, devalue all else, defining co-operation as ‘losing’.
So this then is the problem. To the male mind the whole of life is a big competitive game of winners and losers. In our male dominated societies the winners are the rich and powerful while the losers are the poor and powerless. In this ruthless world that men have created we are told; “nice guys come last”.
If we go back to the basic instincts of say two bulls fighting each other for dominance, then it is a fight to the finish. The winner doesn’t show any compassion towards the loser, in this competitive world; “the winner takes it all, the loser has to crawl”.
This is true of the patriarchal world created by men, pity and compassion is seen as ‘weakness’.
The lesson that pity is a weakness is shown in the last Punic War between the Roman Empire and Carthage. The Carthaginian general Hannibal invaded Italy through the Alps and defeated the Romans in every battle he fought against them. Yet when he had Rome on its knees, he held back and didn’t conquer the city of Rome. This left time for Rome to recover and they fought back to finally defeat Hannibal and the Carthage Empire. So the lesson from this; proves that pity is a weakness, if Hannibal had the killer instinct, he could of saved his country and changed the course of world history.
Yet if we were to take this lesson to its logical conclusion, then it would justify genocide. In any conflict, it would be better to completely wipe out the people you have conquered, for fear they will recover and one day inflict defeat on you.
So the point is; do we really want to live in a world without pity, caring or compassion? Because this is the final logic of the competitive instinct. Ruthlessness only makes sense in warfare, yet is it natural for us to be ruthless killers?
This is the claim made by some evolutionists, when they claim that evolution is all about; “the survival of the fittest”, some go on to claim that; “nature is red in tooth and claw”. So yes, to survive in our tough and brutal world we do need to be ruthless.
The problem with the evolution theory, as portrayed by male scientists, women are hardly mentioned. It is all about how primitive men have bravely fought off carnivorous animals and killed game on the African plains with primitive spears. What were women doing in the meanwhile is never mentioned. Yet in the survival of any species, the role of female, is far more important than that of the male. This is because it is the female that grows the next generation in her body and brings them up when they are born.
This is even more true with the human species, because the human baby is totally helpless in the first few years of its life, it can take a child nearly 20 years before it is fully grown.
Within any tribe, if most of the males die it doesn’t really matter, because one male can impregnate and fertilize hundreds of females. But if most females in a tribe were to die the tribe would take a long time to recover, because a woman can only produce one child every year. So the survival of any species of animal relies on the welfare of the women and the children they care for.
Men are basically expendable, as we only need a few of them to survive, to keep the species going.
This then means that, “the survival of the fittest” is not about macho men fighting sabre tooth tigers. It is about how well women can survive and protect her young. This then means that competition, violence and warfare is a purely masculine way of seeing our world. The feminine instinct that drives not only human women but most female animals, (except for birds like the cuckoo) is about the protecting, caring and nurturing of her young.
This means we have violence, warfare and poverty in our world simply because our world is ruled by men, because they are driven by the competitive instincts. If our world was ruled by women, then we would have a world dominated women’s maternal instincts of nurturing and caring.
Because men’s basic instincts are competitive, men have created hierarchical societies, structured like that of a triangle. With all the wealth and power concentrated at the top of the triangle and at the bottom are the common people who have very little power or wealth in their lives.
The reason for this, is that competitive males see life in terms of winners and losers. The rich and powerful are the winners and the poor and powerless are the losers. In the game of winners and losers the winner gets all the prizes and the accolades while the loser gets nothing and is treated with contempt.
This then means that in any patriarchal/hierarchical system the vast majority of people are seen as losers. And for this reason are treated with contempt by the winners; the rich and powerful.
There is off course the middle-class who have the paradox of being both winners and losers at the same time. They are winners in comparison to the working class, but losers in comparison to the upper class.
This means, in extreme patriarchal societies where women are completely powerless, there is no compassion for the poor and needy, simply because they are losers. While the rulers are acclaimed like gods, because they are winners.
In modern western countries we can see a difference, because women do have far more influence. Because of this, there is attempts to care for the poor, through things like unemployment benefits, minimum wage standards and free schooling and hospital care. So feminine influence can erode the macho culture of winners and losers.
If women were to have even more power and rule countries then they would naturally create genuine caring societies because women would be motivated by their nurturing and caring instincts. They would not want to see children in countries they rule, brought up in conditions of poverty and ignorance. This will mean that the wealth of the country will be shared out more equality, because far more of the resources of the country will be focused on children.
Inequality will always be the fate of patriarchal countries. Even when men adopted the political beliefs of Socialism and Communism they still fail completely to create equal societies.
Equality is totally alien to the masculine mind, because his instincts are competitive and competition doesn’t accept equality. In the wild if two equally matched bull elephants compete with each other for dominance, they don’t suddenly call it quits and share the females between them. They will fight it out, to the death, if both refuse to back down. In other words, equality and sharing goes against the masculine instinct.
The USA won the cold war against the USSR because capitalism is a better system than communism, for men. This is because the attempts by communism to create an equal society eliminated competition. While in the USA there was fierce competition between rival companies to produce better weapons and technology. While in the USSR there was only one company, (the state) making anything, and without this competition the USSR slowly lagged behind the USA in technology.
The problem is with this argument is that it only includes men. Yes, men are highly motivated by competition, but this doesn't apply to women, those main motivation is the caring and nurturing of children. These nurturing instincts can go beyond children to women caring for old people, the disabled and the sick. When women become part of the workplace they regard the companies they work for as family, and try their best to nurture the firms they work for. So if women were put into the positions of industrial and political leaders they wouldn't have to be motivated by competition they can be motivated by caring for the people they rule. Which would create a far more caring and compassionate society.
War demands that people are dehumanised and seen as simply numbers. This is because a general simply couldn't do his job if he saw the enemy or his own men as human beings.
So in the First World War, generals were not allowed to have any feelings or compassion for their own men when they ordered them to go, “over the top” to face near certain death in the face of machine gun fire. The same is true of the Second World War. British and American airman had think in terms of just destroying a city when they went on their bomber raids on German cities. They just couldn't afford to think about the large numbers of women, men and children they were killing in these raids.
One of the most horrendous actions of patriarchy is genocide or ‘ethic cleansing’. What is shocking about men, is that you can convince them it is perfectly all right to murder other people because they are a different race or creed to your own. Admittedly only a minority of men are capable of this. The Germans found this out when they decided to murder the Jews, many of the soldiers ordered to do this, were so traumatize by having to commit murder, that they committed suicide. So it needed a hard core of psychopaths that were willing to carry out this crime.
Yet even in peace, patriarchal rulers still treat the people they rule as numbers.
Patriarchal rulers are capable of knowing that people in the country they rule, live in poverty or are even dying of starvation and yet have no desire to do anything about this. Because caring for others is not automatic to men as it is for women. Women have a powerful maternal instinct where she automatically wants to care for and look after others, unless she has been taught through her upbringing to resist this instinct. Men can be taught how to love and care for others, but if no one in his upbringing teaches him how to love and care for others, then he may not learn this. In fact, patriarchy generally teaches him the opposite.
Because patriarchal history has been dominated by warfare, then the greatest value patriarchal rulers put on men is their ability as soldiers. What is surprising about men is that they are not; “natural born killers”.
One of the biggest problems generals have had in warfare is to make their troops willing to kill the opposition. In the First World War when they were under attack, officers would walk around the trenches with drawn swords and threaten their troops with it, to make them shoot low. This is because the officers discovered that many of their troops would fire above the heads of the incoming attackers.
The Japanese military had similar problems in the Second World War. Japan ranks with Southern Ireland and Switzerland as being one of the most non-violent and crime free, countries in the world. Yet in the Second World War Japanese soldiers were even worse than German and Russian troops for brutality. So how did this happen?
It seems in the 1930s and 40s the Japanese military completely brutalised their troops. The new recruits were beaten up by older recruits at the beginning of their training, then in the second year of training they were forced to do the same to the new intake. Later on many were made to kill prisoners of war, either as live dummies in bayonet practise or cutting off their heads. This total brutalisation taught Japanese soldiers to kill without pity. Yet it is of interest that the Japanese military had to go this far into brutalisation to turn their troops into killers.
In very brutal societies as many third world countries, it seems men are so brutalised that they are far more likely to use violence against women to retain male dominance. Where men are less brutalised as in most industrial countries, then they are far less likely to resort to violence. Though I have to say the brutalisation of men in the West seems mostly to come from very violent films and video games. In that it helps to make violence acceptable to many young men. (Perhaps the makers of these films hope it will turn our young men into, “real “macho” men” who will put women back in their place).
The modern military of the Western World has to use clever behaviourist psychology to train their soldiers how to kill. The unfortunate effect of this is that after a conflict there is a very high suicide rate in soldiers who have fought in wars. It seem that of all the British soldiers that experienced military action during the Falklands War, more of them have since committed suicide, than died during the conflict. There is an even more shocking statistic about the Vietnam War. Where THREE TIMES as many ex-soldiers that saw action, have since committed suicide, than died in the war. Though this figure is hotly disputed there is still an agreement that it is still a very large number. So if men do get very traumatised by war where many kill themselves afterwards, it begs the question; is war and violence is normal and natural for men? It is true some individual men enjoy war and enjoy killing as we see in the case of serial killers. Though there is still a high suicide rate in men who have committed multiple murders.
So it seems that men can be made into killers through brutalisation, but do they really want to be like this?
If killing traumatises men, it also begs the question whether all the wars and massacres we see in history is also normal and natural for men.
This then makes sense of a five hundred year old mystery. The Spaniard Hernán Cortés in the 16th century conquered the Aztec empire of about 5 million people, with just 600 men. So there is a mystery of how he managed to do this with so few men. Some claim that Cortés was helped by the legend of Quetzalcoatl who was worshipped as a white god by the Aztecs. They speculate that the Aztecs thought he was Quetzalcoatl. Which might be true at the beginning but the Aztecs soon realised their mistake and fought back against the Spanish. It is also speculated that Cortés had the advantage of cannon, muskets and horses, but he only had ten small cannon and twenty horses. Also the cannon and muskets of the time were so primitive and unreliable, that the Spanish were still relying on their crossbows.
The Aztec went in for human sacrifice and because of this it is assumed that they must be a very brutal, blood-thirty race of people. Yet if this was the case why didn't they put up a proper fight against the Spanish?
The reason could be that the only brutalised people were the Aztec rulers. The Aztec empire was dominated by a small band of psychopaths, who were more than willing to kill. While the rest of the population were peaceful people whom were unable to kill others. So it would be easy for these psychopaths to dominate this society through fear, which they re-enforced by ritually killing members of the population, through human sacrifice. To stay in power the rulers needed to teach their sons how to kill, so human sacrifice was probably they way they done this. The children of the rulers and priests were probably made to kill in these brutal ceremonies to teach them to become unfeeling psychopaths.
The problem would come when they met other people who were also brutalised trained killers. Because of the peaceful attitude of the population Cortés knew he didn't have to fight them. He had been part of the conquest of Cuba and probably knew that the Indians didn't know anything about warfare. So the only people he had to fight were the Aztec royal family, who were the only people likely to put up any resistance. Once he defeated them, then he was able to rule the Aztecs in much the same way the previous Aztec rulers had done, through violence and fear.
What is surprising about patriarchy is its unbelievable selfishness. Emperors, Kings and other dictators can have unbelievable wealth and yet rule over a impoverish country, and would never dream about using his vast wealth to help the people he rules.
Men like Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte and Hitler, have conquered many other countries simply to have the satisfaction of saying: “Wow look how many countries I've conquered”. The fact that this conquest has killed and ruined to lives of millions of people didn't seem to be a problem for these ‘great’ conquerors. The ego boost of having another country to conquer was enough to drive them on. Though a conqueror or dictator also needs an army of selfish psychopathic men to be able to carry through his conquests.
Fierce competition by its very nature is very selfish.
If you are competing against someone else, you cannot afford to have any sympathy with them, because you want to defeat them. So in the world of competition the more selfish you are, the better you become in focusing on winning. This then means that in the political power games of patriarchy, the most selfish person is most likely to get the top-job. Because he will selfishly do; “whatever it takes” to ensure he became the boss or leader.
So this means in a competitive, “dog eat dog” world you are very unlikely to have compassionate and caring people fill the top-jobs in a patriarchal society. In fact, in extreme patriarchal societies you are likely to have the very worse types of people fill these top-jobs. In the last hundred years there has been a whole host of psychopaths that had become leaders of countries.
The obvious three are Hitler, Stalin and Chairman Mao, who between them all have caused the deaths of millions of people. But there are loads of lesser known dictators who have inflicted a reign of terror onto their people like: Idi Amin in Uganda, Robert Magabe in Zambabwe, General Pinochet in Chile, Than Shwe in Burma, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, Kim Jong-il of North Korea, Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan, Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan, Teodoro Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea, King Mswati III of Swaziland, Aleksandr Lukashenko of Belarus, Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia and Saddam Hussein of Iraq.
This is only a short list of despotic dictators, and in many third world countries today, where it is unusual not to have a despotic dictator in charge.
What is more worrying, is that for these despotic dictators to stay in power and continue their reign of terror they need a army of young men who will willing murder or torture the people when ordered to do so.
One of the reasons why we have democracy in many countries is because the armed services or police will more likely refuse to carry out orders to shoot and terrorist the population. So leaders have to adopt more humane ways of achieving political power.
In 1991 the brutal dictator of Somalia, Muhammad Siad Barre was overthrown. At first this seem to be a good thing, but no one took his place as leader. Since then Somalia has been ruled by warlords who are gangsters that are only interested in making money and exploiting and terrorising the local population. So in the case of Somalia it is very much the case of; “out of the frying pan into the fire”.
Saddam Hussein and George Bush
The theory is; that in these third world countries; if you don’t have a ‘strong man’ as leader, then the country soon degenerates into anarchy.
This is also true of Iraq: Saddam Hussein was probably one of the brutal dictators of modern times. Yet, when the Americans overthrew him the country slipped into civil war and the whole country is now in a state of anarchy. To the degree that many Iraqis were calling for his return, before he was executed. Simply because, whatever you may say about him, he did at least bring stability to the country in contrast to the anarchy and chaos that has happened ever since he was forced out.
So that is the choice billions of people have throughout the world, of either anarchy or a strong repressive dictator. Yet it doesn’t have to be like this; most Western countries have democratic governments, so why can’t this happen in third world countries?
Patriarchy over years of practice, has found a sure-fire way to ensure men remain the dominant sex; and that is to encourage violence.
In Western societies up until the 20th century is was ‘normal’ for men to inflict violence, not only on his wife but his children as well.
Patriarchal religions and oppressive dictatorships like Nazism and Communism know that it is very important to brainwash children from a very early age. The Roman Catholic Jesuits boasted that, “give us a child for the first seven years and we have him for life”.
Children up until the 20th century were basically brutalised in the Western world. It was normal for parents and schoolteachers to cane, birch and whip children. Favourite saying then were, “spare the rod and spoil the child”, “children should be seen but not heard” and “if you see a child look guilty. Hit him. You may not know what it is for, but he does”.
Children were brutalise even as babies. Male “experts” wrote, that a crying baby was being wilful, and mothers where encouraged not to pick up crying baby. They were also told a baby that cried too much was to be put in a room and lock the door, to let it cry itself to sleep. Then infants the moment they began to walk and talk they were subjected to physical punishment. (Boys in general were punished more severely than girls.) This was done not only to teach children discipline from a very early age. It was also done to make, “real men” out of boys. In other words by being brought up in an environment of violence, the children naturally became violent themselves. They then make good soldiers and they are able to kill without pity, the enemies of the country and they are more likely to, “keep women in their place”. Also the effect of psychical abuse undermines the confidence of women.
Men respond to abuse by learning to hate others and becoming aggressive. Women don’t find it so easy to hate others and respond to violence by learning to hate themselves.
Then as the 20th century progressed, women not only gained power over their own bodies but their children as well. Female child experts and more moderate child male experts like Dr Spock began to write books on child care. The development continued to the point that today what was normal for children in the 19th century would be seen today as child abuse.
Children in the past were subjected to sexual abuse as well. That man who was the “whistle blower” was surprisingly, a young Sigmund Freud.
In the past men have got away with child sex abuse scot-free. Then in 1896 a young Sigmund Freud presented a paper entitled "The Aetiology of Hysteria". In this paper he said he had discovered that the neuroses suffered by his patients stemmed from sexual assaults and violence they had suffered as young children. Most of these assaults coming from their own fathers, brothers or other male relations in "respectable middle class" homes. This paper went down like a lead balloon and his colleges put great pressure on him to suppress his paper. Which was singled out from all the other papers presented in Vienna in 1896 to not be published in psychoanalysis's Journal "Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift". Moreover no discussion of his work was allowed. In the end Freud caved in. To save his career Freud did suppress his paper and then came up later with other theories like "Penis envy" and the "Oedipus complex" to explain neuroses. Which hinted at child sex abuse but never openly said it. These theories explained how the abused child felt and how it will effect them later. Unfortunately because these children were in reality were abused, but this fact was censored, this meant that the blame of the neuroses was put on the abused and not the abuser.
Now child sexual abuse is out in the open and not even Roman Catholic priests find they can get away with it. The result is that now children are being far less sexually and physically abused in the Western world. This lack of childhood abuse is causing men to be far less assertive, while women are becoming far more confident in themselves. So what is happening today was predicted back in the 19th century, when it was claimed that if you didn't “harden” (brutalise) boys they will become wimps.
The degree Western men have become wimps can be seen, as previously mentioned, in the number of suicides of soldier after both the Vietnam and Falklands wars. (This is going on in spite of extremely violent films, TV programmes and video games young people are encouraged to watch.) To some people today it is terrible that our young men are losing their, “manhood”, but if we want to live in a world of non-violence and peace, this is a very good thing. It is of interest that the most violent group of men in USA and UK are those of African decent. Black people seem to have been left behind in the reform of child rearing as many young black children are still routinely beaten by their parents. So it is not surprisingly that young black men still tend to be very violent. Though it also doesn't help that more black people are unemployed or work for low wages, than any other ethnic group in Western societies.
Child Soldier in Cambodia
The same is also true in many third world countries where child abuse is considered to be ‘normal’. And in many African and South American countries guerrillas kidnap children teach them how to kill and become soldiers. You can’t accuse these guerrillas of being sexist, because they use young girls and well as boys. Though as they grow up, the girls try to get out of armies they are in, but the boys continue and become the new guerrillas and continue the cycle of kidnapping more children as soldiers.
Another problem for men ruling our world is that men prefer dealing with things than people.
Because women have maternal instincts her main focus is on children and family. So they become observers of people as they try to work out why people behave the way they do. Men don’t have the same interest. Because they more focused on competition they will only be interested in the psychology of others to find a way to beat them and overcome them.
Other ways to beat others is to make and design better weapons or have improved military tactics, and this is what men focus on.
So in the competitive game men create, they are not interested in the happiness of others. All they are interested in is how to beat them and become ‘top dog’. On the other hand under female leadership women would see the people of the countries they rule as their family. They would have a big interest in their welfare and happiness. And so they would be strongly motivated to do something about this.
Because men are more interested in things rather than people we have made big advances in technology. But women don’t have to ditch men’s problem-solving skills because they have become rulers. They can still leave men happily playing with their ‘toys’ providing these toys are not machine-guns or nuclear weapons. They can still compete with each other create useful things, like finding the best way to produce power that doesn't pollute the atmosphere.
Q. Therefore, do you believe that men are basically evil?
A. Personally I distrust this concept because what is good and evil is a matter of opinion. Unfortunately the concept of evil has been used to dehumanise people. That is to say; by claiming certain people are evil has become the justification for genocide.
Men create a world of violence and chaos because they are driven by their basic animal instincts.
We have a choice in this, history shows that men can be trained and brutalised into being vicious and brutal killers, or can be taught to be loving and caring people. Unfortunately patriarchy has preferred to teach men to be violent killers as this is the only way patriarchal countries can protect itself from conquest by other patriarchal countries. This then is the problem when men rule our world, men will compete with each other for power and wealth and use war and violence to do this. If we were to live in a world ruled by women then men can then be taught to be caring and loving people.
But this doesn't mean that men are evil and women are good. It means both sexes are driven by different instincts, men are destructive because of their instincts and women are very constructive again because of their basic instincts.
Q. Do you think women are superior to men?
A. Again this is a value judgement. What is superior or inferior is a matter of opinion. Personally, I prefer not to use such concepts, yes, men and women are different, you can say men on average are bigger and stronger than women, or that women on average live longer than men. But which is more important is a matter of opinion.
Q. Is Matriarchy all about women v men?
A. No, because some of the strongest supporters of patriarchy are women. While in the Matriarchal movement at present, more men support Matriarchy than women. Also patriarchy only benefits a minority of men and women. The small number of alpha men that rule our world, and their female relations and wives. The majority of men do not benefit from patriarchy as most find themselves living in poverty or being used as ‘cannon folder’ in wars created by the ruling elite.
Matriarchy is more likely to benefit the majority of men as well as women. This is because a Matriarchal government will work harder at eliminating poverty than any patriarchal government, which will benefit both men and women. Men will not longer be used as ‘cannon folder’ in the many insane wars that patriarchal governments fight. It is true men will no longer get the chance to rule countries or large corporations, but the vast majority of men don’t get this chance anyway, under patriarchy.
Q. So, if you are recommending that women should rule the world how can this be achieved?
A. This can only be achieved by democratic means. It is completely unlikely that a great Amazon army will set out to conquer the world, like the Greeks under Alexander the Great, or the Roman Empire. Women can only gain power by being elected into office. This means women will have to take over existing political parties which is what is happening in Scandinavian countries. Or create their own matriarchal political party, and be bold enough to say, “Women can rule our country better than what men can”.
Q. Yes but, Margaret Thatcher become Prime Minister of Britain in the 1980s, and she didn't show any of sign of being a caring and compassionate leader.
A. A female leader of a patriarchal government is NOT matriarchy. What is notable about Margaret Thatcher is that she acted and behaved like a man. It would be impossible for a feminine, caring, and compassionate women to become a leader of a patriarchal political party and go on to be the leader of a patriarchal government. This is unfortunately true of many female politicians, businesswomen and professional women competing in a patriarchal society for wealth, status and power, they are forced to act and behave like men.
This is why we cannot get the full benefit of the feminine nurturing instincts in governments, of both men and women. The men will continue to compete with the women for power and status and the women will have to do likewise to hold their own. The sad fact is that in a patriarchal society the feminine virtues of nurturing, caring and compassion become weaknesses. This means that the government has to be totally dominated by women to allow women to express their maternal instincts for the benefit of the whole of society.
Q. The problem with that is, a feminine Matriarchal government will be probably be pacifist. What is to stop patriarchal governments conquering peaceful Matriarch societies of the future?
A. There will be big problems in the change over from patriarchy to Matriarchy and dealing with male violence will be one of the biggest challenges. I should image that a Matriarchal government will know, it cannot afford to get rid of its military power while there are patriarchal governments in existence.
Unfortunately Matriarchal government may have to fight wars to prove to patriarchal governments that they are not a ‘soft touch’. This is what happened to Margaret Thatcher in the Falklands War. The Argentina government may of assumed that because Britain at the time had a female leader she wouldn't have the ‘balls’ to fight a war. But as it turned out, she did show herself to be a very effective war-leader. So even though Matriarchal governments may find it very distasteful to send young men to their deaths fighting in war or training them to be killers. They will need to be realistic and see the military as a ‘necessary evil’ until the whole world becomes Matriarchal.
Q. Do you think men would fight and die for a Matriarchal government?
A. There is no reason why men shouldn't do this, because a Matriarchal government can only come into being through democratic means, so the Matriarchal government’s rule will be the will of the people. Patriarchy v Matriarchy is not the same as men v women. Many women today still strongly support patriarchal rule and in the future many men will support Matriarchal rule.
Q. You claim that men are more violent than women, but women are just as capable of committing murder as what men are.
A. Yes, there are such thing as female murderers but compared with men their numbers are very low. It you look at the whole of history you find that the vast majority of people that were killed on the battlefield or in acts of genocide or simply violent crime were killed by men.
There have been many male serial killers but as far as I am aware there has been only one female serial killer. There have been thousands of violent male bank robbers but only a very small number of violent female bank robbers like Ma Baker. In all acts of violence men greatly outnumber women.
Q. Do you seriously think that people will vote for a Matriarchal political party?
A. If a Matriarchal political party was created, then at first, the people would not take it seriously. Yet this was also true of the Women’s Liberation Movement in the 1960s where it become the target of jokes by male comedians. Yet when people began to listen to what they said, then public opinion changed in favour of the Feminists.
Admittedly it is going to be very hard at the beginning because we all have been brainwashed into believing that only men can rule the world, so any idea of Women ruling the world would be unthinkable.
Yet I believe that the case for Women ruling the world is very strong, and once this message gets out to the common people then there will be support for this idea.
In politics today there is a ‘power vacuum’, this is because in Western countries there is disillusion with all politicians, as many people don’t vote because they don’t trust any of the main political parties. All types of political philosophy have been discredited; few people now believe in communism or fascism, while socialist political parties have, sold out throughout the world and are now conservative parties. While the conservatives themselves have followed through with policies that has made the gap between rich and poor even wider than before. So it is no wonder the people find they cannot trust any political party.
People have tried all sorts of political systems except for Matriarchy; every other political system can only offer more of the same failed policies of the past. Matriarchy can offer something new.
Q. What would happen if Matriarchy doesn’t work? We then will be worse of than before.
A. Like I said Matriarchy can only come into power through democratic means. If in the very unlikely event a Matriarchal party done a worse job in ruling the country than existing patriarchal parties, then they can easy be vote out of power once again.
Q. Feminism advocated sexual equality, would Feminist be opposed to Matriarchy?
A. Yes, more than likely they will be very opposed to the whole concept of Matriarchy. Feminists have claimed that it is wrong for one sex to rule the world, so they would see Matriarchy as being as bad as patriarchy.
Sexual equality may make sense to women but it clearly doesn’t make any sense to men. Men have ruled this planet for the last five thousand years and in that time they have completely failed to create an equal society. Even when men set out with the deliberate purpose of creating equality as in the French Revolution and with communism they still completely failed.
It is men’s completive instincts that make any society ruled by men unequal. Men will compete with each other for wealth, status and power and the winners get the lot and the losers get nothing. So even in a government of half men and half women, the men with compete with the women for power, forcing the women to be as completive as men or lose power altogether. This means that even if it was possible to create a society of sexual equality the nature of the society will still be patriarchal because women will be forced to act like men and be very competitive to retain equal share of power and wealth. This is why sexual equality is very difficult, if not impossible.
A Matriarchal society stands a far better chance in creating a fairly equal society. Women being less competitive than men won’t have the same winner/loser mentality and so allow a more equilibrium society, but it won’t be completely equal as men will have to be kept away from all positions of power and influence.
Q. If tomorrow a Matriarchal political party was voted into power what would they do that would be different to a patriarchal political party?
A. I have to admit, that at first they will carry on more or less the same as any other patriarchal party. All women today have been brought up in a patriarchal society so patriarchy is all that they know, and so they will at first do everything the patriarchal way. But in time things will change; the new female rulers will have a far greater concern for children, old people and the disabled than a patriarchal party, so more attention and resources will be pushed in this direction. In so doing they will eliminate poverty in the country they rule and the gap between rich and poor will decrease. As poverty is the main cause of crime then the crime rate will slowly go down.
Over many years of Matriarchal government the whole of society will change, but it may take a few generations of Matriarchal rule before we have a true Matriarchal society.
Q. So are you saying that a Matriarchal government will be a socialist government?
A. Not necessary, socialism is still an attempt by a patriarchal party to create a fairer and equal society. Yes, a Matriarchal government will have similar aims but they way they will attempt to achieve this, will be different.
I personally believe that in politics, of the, “singer not the song”. In other words, the type of people in power is far more important than the political philosophy they believe in. An extreme example of this is what happened after the French and Russian revolutions. In both revolutions the people in power had ideals of equality for all people, yet ended up behaving far worse than the governments they replaced.
The failure of patriarchy to create a more caring and equal society is caused by the belief that; “the ends justify the means”. So patriarchal rulers with powerful ideals to greatly improve society, believe they need to make “tough decisions” to do this. Unfortunately in most cases these tough decisions end up making the situation even worse than before.
The fact is, that to create a genuine caring and compassionate society you need to have caring and compassionate people in all positions of power. And the means of achieving this also has to be empathetic and considerate of other people’s feelings, which means it will take time.
This means that if we want to live in a caring and compassionate world we have to be patient and do things slowly. I believe women are more likely to behave like this as they have far better people skills than men and know that persuasion is far better than force, in creating a better world for us all.
Q. You claim that Matriarchy can only be achieved through democratic means. Most of the people of the world live under the rule of oppressive dictatorships, does that mean that Matriarchy is impossible for these countries?
A. Once Matriarchy is established in a number of democratic countries then the lifestyle of the people of these countries is going to be compared with the lifestyle of people still living under despotic patriarchal dictatorships. This will cause real problems of these oppressive regimes because the people will be demanding the type of society they see in Matriarchal countries.
Unfortunately the result of this may make these dictatorships even more oppressive as they need to use more violence to keep control of the country. They also may attempt to cut of all communication with the outside world; but in the days of the World Wide Web this may be impossible.
These dictatorships may be able to hold out for many years ruling through violence and fear but the pressure from the people for change will be irresistible and they will in time collapse.
This is what happened in the cold war between communism and Western democratic countries. Communism couldn’t provide the people with the freedoms and material goods that Western countries provide for their people and finally the communist system collapsed in the USSR and changed in China to a capitalist system.
Patriarchy has been able to rule our world for many thousands of years because, as far as the people know, there is no alternative to patriarchy. Once Matriarchy is established in a few countries, then people all over the world we see that there is a better alternative to patriarchal and this will create a worldwide revolution. (Hopefully this will be a peaceful revolution).
Q. If we did have a world wide Matriarchal revolution and it did create a caring and compassionate world wouldn’t this be a very boring world?
A. You don’t need violence, war and conflict to make life interesting. Sport has been shown to be a good substitute for war, for men. So men can still continue to compete against each other through sports. Also modern technology has given us the means to better explore and understand the universe we live in. It would be far better for all of us to put our resources into understanding the world we live in, than into military spending.
Q. How will women treat men in a Matriarchal society?
A. A lot better than men have treated women in patriarchal societies. It would be understandable for women to want; “payback time”. That is to say, to treat men as badly as men have treated women over thousands of years of patriarchal rule. Yet many women claim they don’t want to do this. Yes, there are many angry women, who understandably feel they very aggrieved by the way they have been treated by men. Yet, at the same time many women claim they don’t want to feel hatred for men.
As a man, I do feel that women have the right to treat men as badly as what men have done in the patriarchal age. Men have no right to say; “yes, we have abused women for thousands of years but women shouldn’t want to revenge for this”. But I am also aware that hatred and anger are not nice feelings to have and I can understand any woman who does not want to experience these feelings.
This can create a real problem for men, because if women do not take revenge on men when they have to power to do this. Then it shows up men, and proves that women are far nicer people than what men are. For this reason many men will feel they owe a karma debt to women for the thousands of years of abuse they have inflicted on women. Yet, men cannot force women to abuse them if women don’t wish to do this. So the only way men can pay back their karma debt will be through devoted service towards women.
Q. Is Matriarchy only about men’s sexual Femdom fantasies?
A. Men’s Femdom fantasies are very patriarchal in nature. In these fantasies women dress up in black leather, which is a very macho form of dress like you see, used by Hell’s Angels. These fantasy women also use whips and canes to ‘discipline’ men, which is about using violence to force another person to do what you want. This is again a very masculine method of domination and rule. So the whole Femdom scene is about women acting and behaving like men.
This then is the problem about Femdom, most women don’t want to dress up in black leather and whip and torture men. Many women in the Femdom scene complain that many so-called submissive men want to, “top from the bottom”. That is to say they; these submissive men instruct the dominant woman how they want to be dominated. This may be acceptable if a man goes to a Dominatrix and pays her to act out the role of what he thinks is a Dominant Woman is like. But it can cause real problems in a relationship with a woman where a man tries to do the same thing.
Yet, in spite of the whole paradox of Femdom fantasies, it can still lead to a true Matriarchal relationship.
As pointed out before men do respect and even worship winners. We can see this in the adoration kings and emperors have received, and even brutal dictators like Hitler and Stalin, have also been worshipped by the people. The same is true on the sporting world, where great champions are likewise worshipped as well. Yet this worship can be even stronger when men worship women as winners, because is it mixed with another powerful instinct; and that is sexual attraction.
This helps to explain the behaviour of men within the FemDom scene. This is where men will go to a dominatrix and pay her to whip, torture and humiliate him. Or he will encourage his wife or girlfriend to do the same thing. Even hundreds of years ago in the rigid patriarchal society, some men have paid prostitutes to dominate them and to allow themselves to be worshipped by their clients. The word masochism come from a man called Von Sacher-Masoch who wrote books in the 19th century like the famous "Venus In Furs" about men being dominated and humiliated by women.
In recent years the FemDom scene has been growing in leaps and bounds. In the nineteen fifties many prostitutes were surprised to find clients who were not demanding sex at all and were willing to pay for the privilege of doing their housework for them. Then other clients were asking to be whipped by prostitutes and to be allowed to worship them. At the same time many were encouraged to dress up in macho black leather, rubber and P.V.C and so the modern Dominatrix came into being. The interesting point about this is that it is men who demanded and paid for women to behave like this. In other words the modern Dominatrix was created by the demands of men, to dress up and act in the way he wants to be.
In our present society a women can only dominate a man with the man's consent. Because a man is mostly bigger and stronger than a woman, this is also true in cases where a women uses physical violence on a man, because even if the women is into body-building or karate, a man is still free to walk out of the relationship. So again it is men who are helping and encouraging women to dominate them. If a man refuses to hit back against a violent woman or stays in a violent relationship, he is in effect communicating to the woman he still loves her in spite of how she is treating him. Which is a great boost to the woman's ego and encourages her to continue to abuse him.
So what is going on? Why would men encourage women to be dominant or violent towards him? We have to look at the symbolism of FemDom. The archetypical Dominatrix is dressed up in black-leather or PVC, (though in reality this is not always the case). As pointed out before; black leather is a very macho form of dress, the sort of things that Hell’s Angels also wear. The whip is also a powerful symbol of dominance, as it is the sort of thing slave-owners use on slaves. So again, it is masculine power where dominance is achieved through violence. Some men ask the dominatrix to wear a strap-on dildo and use it on them. Now in some species of monkeys when two males confront or fight each other for dominance, the loser will show his submission by turning his back on the winner and allow him to mount him. So it is again a very masculine symbol of submission. Some men will ask the Dominantrix to verbally abuse him or even go on sex-lines to be abused by a woman. Again this is a very masculine way of dominance and men have been using it on women, children and other men to undermine their confidence in themselves. Sportsmen do this to each other all the time, to get an ‘edge’ over their opponents. Surprisingly, even male ‘friends’ do it to each other. Although men can be friends with each other, the instinct to compete with each other is still so strong, that derogatory remarks and put-downs have become part of masculine humour. Unfortunately men also do this to women. If a woman feels insecure about her weight or anything else about herself, her male partner may see this as an opportunity to put her down and gain dominance over her.
There are many other symbols of submission men use like being dressed up as a baby or feminine women, or kissing the feet or bottom of the dominatrix etc. All these types of kinks are all symbols of masculine submission. So it is not surprising to learn that the whole FemDom scene is mostly dominated by men. It is mostly men who set the agenda and tell Professional Dominas what to do.
Yet the unconscious message coming from these men is a powerful desire for women to dominate them. Unfortunately because of thousands of years of brutality and patriarchal propaganda, women no longer have the confidence or knowledge of how to do this. During the patriarchal age apart from a few women like Elizabeth 1 of England and Catherine The Great of Russia there has been so few dominant women in positions of power. So men are forced to take the lead in this, and they interpret their need to submit to women in masculine terms. This means as a general rule they at first get it wrong completely, as do many women. As we see in the case of Margaret Thatcher one of the main criticism of her was that she didn’t behave like a woman. The way she used power was very masculine, and we never got from her, the nurturing and caring side of women.
Yet by following their desires men and women do learn how to the true meaning of female authority. They can get there in stages. -
A very patriarchal minded man finds he has deviant and kinky desires for Dominant Women. So he either goes to a Dominatrix or persuades his girl friend or wife to act out this role. At this stage, he is firmly in charge he will tell his partner or Dominatrix what his kinks are and she will act them out for him. For him, he is only satisfying his selfish desires and the Woman is accommodating him.
He will at first be able to separate his kinky desire from his ‘ordinary’ life. So he can go to a Dominatrix to worship or be humiliated by her and then go back to his submissive wife and treat her like an ordinary patriarchal wife. Or if it is his partner he plays these kinky games with, she is only playing a role, but it is he who is still in charge. While the rest of the time they are a ‘normal’ couple.
But, being whipped or caned by a woman, being on the receiving end of a strap-on, being verbally abused, worshipping a woman by kissing her feet or bottom, is going to effect him on the unconscious level.
Some men after awhile will want to take it all to the extreme and want to be really tortured and hurt by the Domina, or even want to eat her shit. Yet no matter how far he goes down this route he finds he is still not satisfied, because extremes like this, are a dead-end. So what he begins to find is that his desires begin to leak outside of the kinky sessions into his ‘normal’ life.
He may find going to a Dominatrix whom he tells what to do, no longer satisfying and wants her to tells him what to do. He may find he has a desire for his wife to be more dominant and may consciously or unconsciously encourage her to be more like this in her ‘normal’ life. So he will find, he want her to dominate him outside of their sessions.
By being worshipped by the man and told; “you are in charge”, effects the women on the unconscious level as well. The result is, she begin to take charge of the sessions and begins to tell the man what she prefers. For instance; the man might want to be whipped or caned but she may not get any enjoyment from this, and decide they will do something else instead, like him practising cunnilingus on her but denying him orgasm. So she find she can start to change things for her benefit and he will comply.
Femdom from a masculine point of view is just about dominance and submission or sadism and masochism but when the Women take control, she finds she wants to introduce love into this mix. Submission to her is about the desire to give love to another, while dominance is about receiving love. She will also be very interested in the psychologically of the submissive man, and want to know how he feels. So she will introduce him to the idea that he wants to worship and serve her, because he loves her more than himself.
So now, the balance of power is changing and the Woman is now taking control, as the fantasy is now changing into a reality.
At stage one the Woman was learning from the man. Now it is the opposite, and the man is now learning from the Women. He begins to learn from her; the Feminine point of view, of the joy of caring and loving others, of devoting your life to make another happy, and empathizing with them. So that their happiness becomes his happiness. Though he may also learn the hard lessons of empathizing with those who are unhappy and learn how to do his best to bring happiness to them.
The Women is now becoming more confidence in her Feminine nature as she sees her man is now far more happier learning from her how to love. She is also now learning how to love herself through the worship and devotion of the man.
Through these stages both Women and men learn how much better life is, if Women are in charge and how much better our world would be if Women ruled the world.
Off coarse not all men follow these five stages. Some men learn love through their children. Many wife’s today make their husbands watch the birth of their children and take part in caring for the child from a very early age. This teaches men to bond with their own children and learn how to care for them. Also, now that women have more power, influence and confidence in themselves mother’s are bringing up children in the way they want to. So from an early age many boys are learning from their mothers to respect women and are taught how to love and care for others.
This then means that men do have a choice: They have learnt they can dominate women through violence, but they pay a high price for this. Because in a totally male dominated world, like you still find today in many Moslem countries, men are dominated in the same way, through violence by other men. In fact, the only people who seem to benefit from male dominated rule is a handful of alpha men.
We can learn a lot about the behaviour of men through the study of dogs. It is recognized that if you want have a happy relationship with a dog in your house it is important to train it. An untrained dog can wee and poo in your house, it can get very aggressive with you, or with visitors coming to the house. It might steal food from your table and can make itself a nuance with other people when you take it for a walk. The dog may even attack yours and other people’s children as badly trained pet dogs have be known to kill children.
But if you train it properly from an early age, it will become the most loyal, devoted and obedient animal you can possibly have. Or you can also train it to be a killer. By savagely beating dogs, you can teach it to be very vicious and even teach it to kill other dogs or people. So the behaviour of dogs can vary tremendously by the way you choose to treat it. The same is true for men.
A man outside of feminine influences and training can become very selfish and care nothing for others or even for his own children. He can even be trained to be a killer if he joins the army or is brutalised by a violent father. But a man can also be trained to be a loving a caring person if her learns to respect women and the feminine from a very early age and learns from women how to nurture and care for other people.
Femdom shows how important it is for men to respect and listen to women and learn from them, because Femdom is man’s idea of what a Matriarchal society will be like. But a true feminine woman will have no interest in dominating a man through force, intimidation and violence. The only reason why men need to respect and obey women is because, all of us, both men and women, will be far better off if Women rule the world.
Q. Yes but Femdom is about sadism and masochism and is therefore a minority interest of sick minded people.
A. Unfortunately, sadomasochistic behaviour is far more commonplace than people would like to think. For instance school bullying has now been identified as a major problem in all schools, but bullying is sadist behaviour of children enjoying the power of being able to hurt other children. Sadomasochism is even shown in mainstream films and TV is a very disguised form. For instance the John Wayne film “McLintock” which shows John Wayne abusing and spanking Maureen O’ Hara. The same is also true of the musical film, “Seven Brides For Seven Brothers”, which has the theme of men kidnapping, raping and forcing women to marry them. Both films are very light-hearted in the way they treat the subject matter, as they attempt to make male dominance and violence against women acceptable. Many other films do this though not is such a blatant and obvious way, like the James Bond films which frequently features violence against women, sometimes by the ‘hero’ James Bond.
If we look in history we find that the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome were slave economies. Where slaves had no human rights and the slave owners were free to abuse them, and be as sadistic towards them as they liked. With the fall of the Roman Empire, slavery was ended but returned in the form of serfdom. Also black slavery started in the 16th century where black slaves were taken from Africa and forced to work in mines and plantations in America. The brutality and sadism of the slavers was incredible and it is hard to understand why men could treat their fellow humans so cruelly. And this is not just about white men treating black people badly, the slavers brought their slaves from other Africans who raided other tribes and capture people so they could sell them.
In the 19th century many rich women in USA campaigned against slavery, but as they looked into the subject more deeply they were shocked to discover that slaves at that time, had better legal rights than women.
What is not realised is that women have been slaves of men for thousands of years. Up until the 19th century everything a woman had, was owned by either her father or husband, and he had the legal right to assault, beat and even murder her. Even in the 20th century the police in the Western world had a policy of not intervening in ‘domestic disputes’, which means that if a woman was to called the police if her husband was assaulting her, they wouldn’t do anything about it. This has changed in recent years through campaigning by Feminists and the setting up of Women’s Refuges where women can escape from abusive husbands and boyfriends. Until very recently husbands still had to legal right to rape their wives, rape is still a big problem for women where even today they find it very difficult to convict a man for raping them, because of the non-cooperation of the police and legal profession.
In Islamic countries women are still treated as slaves where their male relations strictly control them. These countries have an ‘honour’ system where a husband loses honour if a woman disobeys him or even criticises him. The man then can only restore his ‘honour’ by assaulting and beating her or in some cases murdering her. To show how brutal this can be; recently in Britain the brothers from an Islamic family were convinced for the murder of their sister, where they forced their mother and sisters to witness them killing her. Apparently she ‘dishonoured’ them for daring to criticise them. There is even cases in Islamic countries of sons murdering their own mothers who have dared to speak out. Also if a Woman was foolish enough to go to the police to complain that she was raped, it would be she who would go to prison for being ‘unfaithful’ to her husband.
So why are men so brutal to women and each other? To understand this we have to go back to our animal instincts.
As pointed out before male animals fight each other for dominance and the right to have sex with females. Male animals don’t only assault other males but also females to gain sexual favours. Chimpanzees and other primates have been observed beating up females if she dares to refuse sex to a dominant male.
A graphic account of this was told by the Japanese primatologist Mariko Hiraiwa-Hasegawa. She was observing two chimp communities she called M and K group. One day she discovered the alpha male of M group called Ntologi with four of his sidekicks attacking a lone female from K group and her three year old child. With the help of a companion Hiraiwa-Hasegawa attempted to chase the male chimps off by beating them with canes, but the powerful males ignored them. Then her companion threw a rock at the males and this had the effect of making them backing off. (Had the male chimps had instead attacked the two humans they wouldn’t of stood a chance against the powerful chimpanzees). The life of the female was saved, although she and her child were covered in blood and badly injured. A year later the same female had another child and was again attacked by the Nitologi and his henchmen, and this time they ate her baby alive. After this the female defected to M group and mated with her baby’s murderer, probably because she couldn’t no longer find safety in F group for herself and her children. A postscript to this, was that Ntologi himself was later murdered by his second in command, so he could take over the position of the alpha male. While Hiraiwa Hasegawa has given up observing chimpanzees because she was so appalled by their behaviour, that she learnt to hate them.
Male hamadryas baboons are also very aggressive. They kidnap females to become part of their harems from a young age and maintain it through continuous threats and intimidation. Usually by biting the back of the necks of the females, which is a real threat as hamadryas baboons have large razor-sharp canines. This means he is capable of killing the female if was to bite hard. The males frighten the females so badly that they will not stray too far from them, so that even a stare by the male will frighten the females. They are then under the control of the male and will never refuse sex when they are in season.
So it seems in the masculine mind sex, dominance, submission and violence are strongly linked. As pointed out before, in some monkey species if two males fight each other for dominance, the one who backs down, shows his submission by allowing the dominant male to mount him. This is also what happens in Greco-Roman wrestling. The winner is the one who can hold the other wrestler in the position of mounting him. This is also part of Femdom sexuality where the women puts on a strap-on and buggers the male, because it symbolises the woman’s dominance in the male mind.
We also find this in male pornography where the man asserts his dominance over the female by first assaulting, beating or spanking her before he has sex. So a man like this is behaving in exactly the same way as male chimpanzee in the way he wants to have sex with women. This means that animal instincts still control men’s behaviour, and this is why men still strongly associate sex, with violence and sadomasochist behaviour.
The result is that in the West when it has become unacceptable for men to dominate and use violence against women, men have gone to the opposite extreme. So instead of men using violence to gain dominance over women these men are now demanding that women use violence to gain dominance over them.
The competitive nature of men pushes them to the extremes, in dividing the world up into winners and losers, dominance and submission. They therefore see women in the same way. A very sexy and glamorous woman has either a very submissive nature or a very dominant nature. Women, who are equal to men, may be “one of the boys” but do not have the same sexual appeal for men.
In Hollywood in the 1930 and 40s a large number of powerful women appeared on the screen. Like Betty Davis, Joan Crawford, Mae West, Marlene Dietrich, Katharine Hepburn and Barbara Stanwyck, all becoming successful film stars and were referred to as “love Goddesses”. Some of the story lines were far ahead of their time in portraying strong women, and they became powerful role models for ordinary women. So what were these film producers in the 1930s and 40s doing promoting strong women? Hollywood at the time wasn’t burden by too much censorship, so film producers were free to give the public what they wanted. So if certain types of story line or film star become popular, they made more films of the same kind.
Then a change came after the second world war, America was taken over by McCarthyism who not only attacked communism but women as well. At the beginning of the 1950s, women were encouraged by women's magazines and films to become more "feminine". Betty Friedan exposed this in her book The Feminine Mystique that helped create the Women's Liberation Movement. The powerful female film stars in the 1950s found it harder to get film-roles and more passive women like Doris Day, Elizabeth Taylor and Marilyn Monroe became the new female film stars. Only Marilyn Monroe became very glamorous and sexy because she played the role of a ‘dumb blond’. The reason why a dumb blond become sexy for a man, is that she is willing to act stupid is to allow a man to show her he is cleverer than her. This means she has a very submissive nature, and wants to please the man as much as she can.
Doris Day wasn’t willing to play submissive roles and became a Star on talent alone, but she was too much, ‘one of the boys’, to be a ‘sex-bomb’. In more modern times the strong woman has made a comeback in films but interesting many are very violent women, as we see in, “Charlie’s Angels”, “Kill Bill” and “Tomb Raiders”, which like we see in femdom, the masculine way to gain dominance. Some of these women even wear black cat suits like a Dominatrix. So even today on films and TV a woman is allowed to be violent but not obviously bossy and dominant, unless she plays the role of the villain.
Q. You claim there was a Matriarchal age in prehistoric times what proof do you have that this is true?
A. This is a very controversial subject. It is an unfortunate fact that male chauvinists dominate the academic world, so it is hard to get to the true facts on this subject.
The concept that women once ruled the world in ancient times is nothing new. It got started by a scholar called J.J Bachofen in the 19th century. He brought together all the evidence of matriarchy in ancient times then available. He was strongly criticized for this by other scholars who dismissed and discredited his work. Yet in spite of this, his work was to inspire the scholars James Frazer to write his famous book, "The Golden Bough". It also influenced Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who publicly praised Bachofen's work. In spite of the condemnation of Bachofen the controversy wouldn't go away. Other scholars in the early 20th century also wrote about matriarchy like Robert Briffault, Jane Harrison and Dr Margaret Murray. But this argument was kept very much within academic circles. Then in the 1940s the poet Robert Graves wrote his book, The White Goddess, which was the first attempt to bring this argument to the general public, even though it was a very complex book and not a easy read for the average reader. Then on the wave of the feminist movement of the 1960s and 70s feminist scholars like Merlin Stone and Barbara G. Walker also continued to dig deep into ancient history to find more evidence of matriarchy in ancient times.
The evidence for a Matriarchal past doesn’t only come from scholarship but archaeology as well. The late Marija Gimbutas was digging in Neolithic sites in Achilleion, Thessaly in Greece and also found finds, of feminine imagery and no sign of violence and warfare. Also in her books and scientific papers she highlight the Neolithic findings that archaeologists had made at Lepenski Vir and Vlasac in Northern Yugoslavia, as well as the Neolithic findings by Soviet scientists in Bulgaria, Romania, Moldavia, and the Western Ukraine. Western archaeologist had made similar finds in Crete, Cyprus, Thera, Sardinia, Sicliy and Malta. All showing peaceful societies that worshipped the Great Mother. Yet archaeologists chose to ignore these findings, because they contradicted the belief of the time that warrior leaders started civilization. It was only Gimbutas who was brave enough to take these finds seriously and she became a very controversial figure.
Richard Rudgley recently wrote two books and made a TV program called “The Secrets Of The Stone Age” that broadly supported Marija Gimbutas theories. So now there are many people in the academic world who are now more accepting of the evidence that the first civilisations live in peace.
Richard Rudgeley comes straight to the point when he says, “The widely accepted view of the human story is wildly inaccurate.” He then goes on to point out that because historians have ignored what happen during the Neolithic age it seems that to the general public that civilisations suddenly appeared out of no-where. Because we are taught that the people in the Stone-Age were ignorant savages, who then suddenly created sophisticated civilisations like ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Then because orthodox archaeology gives no explanation to the public of how this suddenly happened, in this vacuum people outside science have invented their own theories. Like Erich Von Daniken in his book “Chariot Of The Gods”, or the many theories of a lost continents like Atlantis, Mu and Lemuria.
The point he is trying to make is that if the general public was aware that Stone-Age people were not ignorant brutes and that civilisation didn’t start with the Egyptians, but thousands of years earlier in the Neolithic age. Then we would not need aliens from outer space or lost continents to explain how civilisation got started.
He explains that the first large stone structures were not built in the Nile Valley but in the island of Malta. When the first archaeologists first excavated the Temple complex of Malta they assumed it was a crude attempt to copy what was built in ancient Greece, but when it was carbon dated it was found to be built 5,500 years ago. A thousand years older than the Great pyramid in Egypt. He then says that the comments of archaeologists hearing this news was that is was the wrong date in the wrong place. The reason apparently for this attitude for this is that Malta is off the beaten track. Which is strange because Malta is just off the coast of Italy and not that far from Ancient Greece and Egypt. A more plausible explanation is that the archaeologists didn’t want to know that Malta had the oldest free standing stone buildings in the world, because the Temples in Malta are Goddess Temples. With Giant statues of the Great Mother.
Can it be, that the reason we have such a large gap in our history that Richard Rudgley complains about, is because it is an age when people clearly worshipped the Great Mother? As all the “lost Civilisations” that he writes about where all full of feminine images. It strongly suggests that this silence is simply male bias. In men who discovered these sites wanting males to be the ones who created the first civilisations and not women
Q. Surely it doesn’t matter today whether there was Matriarchal civilizations in the past or not. This is not going to make any difference to today’s world.
A. It can matter a lot for women’s confidence in themselves. His-story teaches Women have men have always ruled the world, and suggests that male rule is the ‘natural’ for human beings. If people believe this then any suggestion of a world ruled by women would seem to be ‘unnatural’ and unrealistic. If on the other hand women have proof that women did rule the world in the Neolithic Age then is gives Women a lot more confidence in pushing forward for Matriarchy.
Also, if it is accepted that Woman did rule the world in Neolithic times and this was an age of peace and harmony, then this could start a powerful political movement. So it seems ancient discoveries are very political. If it became common knowledge that thousands of years ago people did live in peace and equality, then people worldwide will begin to ask the same questions like, “why are we today living in a world of conflict, injustice and poverty? This is turn could create new political and religious movements that will challenge our present ruling elite. Because if in the past we lived in a world of peace and equality then why can’t we do the same today? This is why Neolithic archaeology is political; as it is questioning the way our world has been ruled for the last five thousand years.
The history we are taught at school shows a slow progression from time when we were brutal cavemen to even more brutal early civilisations to the democratic governments of today. History tells us we are today more advanced and free then in any time in history. As Harold Macmillian the British Prime Minister of the 1950s, once said, “you never had it so good”. The problem is that if this wasn’t true and there was a time in the past when people lived without wars, conflict, laws and poverty. This would cause great problems for the establishment. Because many people will ask “why can’t we have this today?” Government would then be under greater pressure to give the people more freedom, provide for a more caring society and eliminate warfare. This would create a worldwide revolution far worse for the Status Quo than the Communist revolutions. Governments today can get away with an unequal society and limiting the freedom of the people by claiming that because of “human nature” a true caring, equal and free society is impossible. If there was proof in the past that this was possible and people were able to live in caring and free societies. The power of the ruling elite would be greatly undermined and there would be a worldwide demand for Matriarchy.