The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Woman World
AJAlkaline40
__BANNED USERS regular
__BANNED USERS regular
There have been various threads lately speaking generally about feminism and misogyny in modern society, and as a result I feel I've begun to more closely examine how sexism continues to pervade our culture regardless of the great strides we've made from formerly entirely patriarchal societies (though some still exist today). It is interesting, and admittedly more than a little disheartening to see where we have progressed and where we really haven't progressed much at all. The status quo is hard to change, and with a status quo so deeply ingrained in almost all societies of the world (indeed, some even suggest that it's an unjust piece of human nature that we have to overthrow) it will be a while before we see an actual true equality between men and women. Sexism is a more devious thing even than racism, because as our cultures meld and recombine, race and the issues surrounding it may disappear forever, but sexism is based on one of the most fundamental aspects of our biology; sex will never disappear and sexism may cling to our society forever.
Anyway, on a tangent, I was wondering what the world would be like if it were just the opposite. It's incredibly hard to imagine, considering the fact that it has never happened, but what if a society were to exist that was primarily matriarchal? What differences would we expect, and what might stay exactly the same? There's the misandronist view (utopia), but I wanted to examine what that society might actually entail. Mostly I'm going off of the idea that matriarchal society, like our current patriarchal society, would have some large basis in its rules and customs in differences in biology. For this reason, I'm going to assume the thesis (the highly contested thesis) that a large portion of the differences attributed to men and women are not merely socially constructed, but evolutionarily constructed and part of our more basic instincts (if anyone wishes to argue this in the thread, I see no reason why not). Also, for the basis of the discussion, I'm going to imagine an oppressive matriarchal society, to directly contrast the oppressive patriarchal society that we've originated from (or still exist in today).
Anyway, the first thing to consider would be the roles of males in the society, what with women being primarily in power. I'm going to make the suggestion that in this matriarchal society, monogamy will not exist. The system of marriage has historically been used as a tool to pass the ownership of a woman from her father to her husband, a way almost to signify the exchange of goods. Our system of marriage, though no longer symbolic of ownership with the advent of divorce and higher power for women, springs from this traditional trade off. The tying of a woman to a man has historically signified the man's unrestricted sexual access to the woman in return for shelter, food, and protection of her children. It has been suggested before that the system of monogamy actually better benefits men than it does women; as a woman would be better off marrying a man who is more attractive, rich and resourceful who already has a wife than she would be marrying a man who was less than half as wealthy or attractive (though, obviously, women in polygamous relationships in patriarchal society get the way short end of the stick, as they're forced into the relationships by overbearing fathers and religious bullying, removing any and all benefits of selective polygamy). The limiting factor in reproductive success is the number of females. While an infinitely large group of females could share a single male and all produce offspring, an infinitely large group of males could not share a single female and all produce offspring. In essence, every man can't have the best woman, but every woman could share the best man.
For this reason, I think that males would be divided up into two classes. There would be a very small "breeding" class of men; these men would be the healthiest, most attractive, most intelligent, and otherwise best "gene'd". Their primary function in society would be to supply the ruling females with sperm. The rest of the men, those that do not make the cut off for reproductive viability, would become a working class. They would be well adapted for manual labor, but they would never be given the opportunity to breed. If the society was particularly oppressive (like some patriarchal societies) they might even castrate this manual labor class.
Anyway, what are your thoughts on what a matriarchal society would be like?
EDIT:
Fixed for incorrect terminology.
Anyway, on a tangent, I was wondering what the world would be like if it were just the opposite. It's incredibly hard to imagine, considering the fact that it has never happened, but what if a society were to exist that was primarily matriarchal? What differences would we expect, and what might stay exactly the same? There's the misandronist view (utopia), but I wanted to examine what that society might actually entail. Mostly I'm going off of the idea that matriarchal society, like our current patriarchal society, would have some large basis in its rules and customs in differences in biology. For this reason, I'm going to assume the thesis (the highly contested thesis) that a large portion of the differences attributed to men and women are not merely socially constructed, but evolutionarily constructed and part of our more basic instincts (if anyone wishes to argue this in the thread, I see no reason why not). Also, for the basis of the discussion, I'm going to imagine an oppressive matriarchal society, to directly contrast the oppressive patriarchal society that we've originated from (or still exist in today).
Anyway, the first thing to consider would be the roles of males in the society, what with women being primarily in power. I'm going to make the suggestion that in this matriarchal society, monogamy will not exist. The system of marriage has historically been used as a tool to pass the ownership of a woman from her father to her husband, a way almost to signify the exchange of goods. Our system of marriage, though no longer symbolic of ownership with the advent of divorce and higher power for women, springs from this traditional trade off. The tying of a woman to a man has historically signified the man's unrestricted sexual access to the woman in return for shelter, food, and protection of her children. It has been suggested before that the system of monogamy actually better benefits men than it does women; as a woman would be better off marrying a man who is more attractive, rich and resourceful who already has a wife than she would be marrying a man who was less than half as wealthy or attractive (though, obviously, women in polygamous relationships in patriarchal society get the way short end of the stick, as they're forced into the relationships by overbearing fathers and religious bullying, removing any and all benefits of selective polygamy). The limiting factor in reproductive success is the number of females. While an infinitely large group of females could share a single male and all produce offspring, an infinitely large group of males could not share a single female and all produce offspring. In essence, every man can't have the best woman, but every woman could share the best man.
For this reason, I think that males would be divided up into two classes. There would be a very small "breeding" class of men; these men would be the healthiest, most attractive, most intelligent, and otherwise best "gene'd". Their primary function in society would be to supply the ruling females with sperm. The rest of the men, those that do not make the cut off for reproductive viability, would become a working class. They would be well adapted for manual labor, but they would never be given the opportunity to breed. If the society was particularly oppressive (like some patriarchal societies) they might even castrate this manual labor class.
Anyway, what are your thoughts on what a matriarchal society would be like?
EDIT:
Fixed for incorrect terminology.
AJAlkaline40 on
0
Posts
edit: not to sound dismissive or anything but if you really want to play "what if" women in charge societies along the lines you seem to be proposing you would probably get a lot more feedback if you were to pose the qestion at a femdom site.
just sayin'
Beyond that I really couldn't say, although your concept of "breeders" is kind of crazy.
I would very much disagree with your statement that in a matriarchal society monogamy would not exist...women that are pregnant/have a child have a very strong biological urge to maintain a stable relationship, most likely as a safety mechanism for the child. Men appear to have a stronger urge to be polygamous, in order to further their genetic line.
What? No it isn't. The goal of feminism is equality amongst people not vindictively forcing men to be subservient for a few millenia to even the score.
In any event I'd figure that a chiefly matriarchal history and present day would be very similiar to what we have now. Only with more queens and a few different qualities being elevated as desireable while some of the present ones dip into the background noise.
Also, ubiquitous gogo boots and mini-skirts.
I was kind of thinking of what would happen in the extreme situation. I'm just trying to divide what aspects of our society are in place because we developed from an oppressive patriarchal situation.
Pretty much just the fact that male gonads are good and female gonads are evil.
Aside from the sexual characertistics matri vs. patri doesn't change that much in and of itself.
Remember, gender is cultural.
When I said radical feminist what I really meant was radical, extreme, crazy-bitch feminism, like the kind that the vast majority of feminists are not. Also, I was joking.
Also, I don't know exactly how similar society would be to what it is now. I think a lot of us take for granted the number of customs and institutions we have that strictly benefit male dominance.
Though you're completely right about feminism, I'm pretty sure what he meant by "radical feminism" is the sect of feminists that want to transfer all societal to power to women. Thereby creating a Matriarchal society.
A radical feminist is NOT someone who hates men, because that's the opposite of feminism.
Feminism has a distinct definition. People using the term because they're too ignorant to simply call themselves misandronists does not change that definition until the -real- feminists are all killed off or something.
Incenjucar hit it on the head. Gender identities are mostly learned. There probably wouldn't be much of a difference.
To be honest, I think that's really questionable. I mean, on one level it's hard to say that any aspect of human behavior isn't cultural because outside of any culture humans fail to develop into functioning human beings, however at the same time there have been a number of cases of "males raised as females" and vice-versa that ended up being complete failures because the child seemed to natural gravitate towards activities people say are cultural imbued in them. Let me see if I can't find a link to one of them.
No, no, I get what you mean. What I meant were members of SCUM and the like.
Is there a term for that though? If you say Femi-nazi, I'm going to be upset.
I started reading this and it's very interesting. I'd be more interested in seeing this kind of society 30+ years down the line instead of a matter of months afterward. But still, a good read if you're into "what happens next" scenarios.
--
Alk: No, it isn't questionable at all. We have examples of societies where women act like stereotypical western ideas of men and men act like western ideas of women. They're living, breathing proof.
Gender is cultural.
I think it's worth debating. Gather some sources and I'll gather some of my own. I'll be honest, I do not know a lot on the subject, so you'll probably just be teaching me things I didn't know, but I'm resistant to the idea on face value. Also, it should be important that we date our research, as this seems like the sort of thing that could become outdated quickly.
I don't recall the name of the tribe, and they're kind of hard to locate online , perhaps because people don't like that they exist.
They're there, though, along with various historical examples.
The Cat or other person with a more specific memory may know their name off-hand.
There's the really famous study of the Canadian guy that had his dork sliced off by some kind of circumcision laser.
Basically what happened was that this guy had a twin brother. When they were both very young (I think about a year or so) they went to the hospital for circumcisions. One boy's procedure was fine, the other boy's procedure was not. As a result, the doctor recommended that the mother of the child go see a Psychologist, who was named John Money. Anyhow, the Dr. Money recommends that the mother raise the child as a girl, so she does that.
Basically, the child goes through a lot of emotional trauma while growing up because she feels out of place. She becomes a bit of a tom-boy. I think when she reached the age of 17 or so, her mother told her that she had been biologically born a boy. It was at that point that she rejected her gender as a woman, disappeared into obscurity, and gender herself to become a man.
In the Psychological community, there was a really huge following behind this study as it was going on, as it was the first of its kind.
There was a really good BBC documentary on it. The even interviewed the man, who was married to a woman at the time of the documentary (mid 90's, I think) but then committed suicide a couple of years later.
TL;DR no one really knows how much culture plays into gender.
EDIT: Here's a wiki entry for Dr. Money.
BONUS EDIT: Here's one for David Reimer, the subject of the experiment.
http://www.womanwarrior.co.uk/Africa.html
--
Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if sex identification has something to do with chemicals, much like how women start matching their cycles, because any time someone adopts gender characteristics on their own they're still conforming to THAT society's notion of the gender, and not another culture's.
Really the major theme here is not necessarily that they defied aspects of gender, but rather that the women held some power over the men. Nothing about these stories suggested that the women were not feminine, just that they were not dominated by a patriarchy, save for maybe the story about the women fighters. Also, the Tuareg women owning the tents would make sense if they were raising the children, and the men having to wear veils was never explained. I'll look into it more myself.
What the hell definition of gender are you working off of?
The gist is that while sex is biologically determined, what is socially acceptable and expected behavior for men and women in a given society (gender specific behavior) is as diverse as the number of societies.
Do men hold hands and sit on each others lap? Japan; yes, US; no. Do women fight in wars? Ancient Celts; yes, Ancient Chinese; no.
While in Alabama a guy who kisses his male friends hello and thinks nothing of having a hand on a shoulder or leg would been seen as leaning toward the feminine side in other places this would be seen as perfectly reasonable masculine behavior.
Look at the links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_roles
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype
[QUOTE=WIKI]
[edit] Sex and gender stereotyping
See also: Gender roles
See also: LGBT stereotypes
This short section requires expansion.
Sex and gender stereotyping could be classified as a single idea. Although sex is usually defined as a person's biological traits, gender is defined as how a person identifies themselves to the world. Gender relates to those affectations that are attributed to men and those affectations that are attributed to women. It is important to understand that in this discussion it requires a social structure that tends to enforce a binary sex and gender role based on a persons biological characteristics.
Gender stereotypes are those ideas, usually imposed by society of what is expected of men and women in the social structure. Men are expected to be tough, unfeeling, insensitive, combative, the owner or ruler of the home. Other traits associated with men are assertive, risk takers.
Women are expected to be the nurturers, caregivers, demure, polite, and the family homemaker.
Much of this discussion goes parallel to the discussion on gender roles because they primarily impact people in a negative way. Such as the view that all women are weak and that all men are strong. This is definitely affected by our biology but is not true in all cases. There are men that have physically very little strength and there are women that physically strong by comparison.
[/QUOTE]
First, it presumes women only want sex to breed. Second, it presumes it would be a labor class, and not just a not-in-charge class. Like, what would the similarity be in male dominated history? Did we ever have a large phase when women did all the manual labor and men just sat around using them to pop out babies?
Honestly, a matriarchal society would likely evolve the same as a patriarchal society. Just with a different gender in charge. And hopefully without Cosmo.
I extrapolate that the not-in-charge class would translate into a labor class because men, unlike women, have less use raising children than they do preforming manual labor. This, of course, suggests that even in a matriarchal society men would still be less nurturing than women and would still have an easier time developing physical strength than women do.
USA; 1920s
Attractive female figure = 10 year old boy in a dress
Considering that just in western society alone the standard of beauty has run from rubenesque to emaciated it would seem that atractiveness is very heavily influenced by culture.
Motor skills/ spatial skills can be chalked up to biology but things like who spends how much time watching the kids and cleaning up again varies widely from place to place.
Those are called chauvinists, not feminists.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Alright, in this instance, we're switching from the dominance of exaggerating one aspect that differentiates men from women with another, though. Relative daintiness is another thing that is considered, across cultures (save for that amazon society that may or may not exist), to be something that sets women apart from men. It's still exaggerating a feminine aspect, just a different one. The ideal women were still not completely flat-chested body builders (and I might add that while there are body-builders who are popularly considered attractive, most of them have an otherwise pretty feminine body structure).
There was actually a documentary that I watched in a high school sociology class about this that was quite good, if I could just remember what it was called.
EDIT:
Here it is, maybe I can find some clips on youtube:
http://shopping.discovery.com/product-32553.html
EDITEDIT:
On second thought, there might be another one that I'm thinking of...I'll look around.
"Relative daintiness" is considered across cultures to seperate women from men because.. it does. Women are physically smaller than men. You're confusing this with sexual desire though. For most of history men have liked big women, for obvious reasons.
No, what I'm trying to say is that attractiveness is based off of exaggerating aspects of the body that are already different between men and women. Now, I'm not refuting that the focus of these exaggerations change considerably depending on social and economic conditions, that's entirely sensible, but I am saying that these exaggerations are never based on making the female look more male. "Big women" had heavier fat deposits, and fat deposits grow more quickly on females than males. It's another aspect that differentiates men and women, it's just that because of the conditions it's now the primary focus.
Exactamundo.
Check out fashion modelling.