Page 3 | A matriarchy would be better than a patriarchy for women?

Verlaine · 05/02/2025 20:38

That poster wasn’t suggesting it - they were discussing a book. Plus you know that doesn’t constitute eugenics - no genes were being altered.

Precipice · 05/02/2025 20:38

TheyAreNotAngelsTheyDontCareAtAll · 05/02/2025 17:43

Have you seen any episode of the Apprentice when it's just the all women group doing a task?
Besed on years of observing their behaviour, this country would be buggered in a week.!

Show quote history

Wow... what a vile and misogynistic attitude, to think that women as a whole are incapable.

Leafy74 · 05/02/2025 20:35

Verlaine · 05/02/2025 20:22

There'd be fewer wars but massive world-wide row once a month.

fucking hell, who needs the patriarchy when women say stuff like this

One poster actually suggested eugenics, but it's my crap joke that bothers you!

Original poster

OutsideLookingOut · 05/02/2025 20:27

Verlaine · 05/02/2025 20:22

There'd be fewer wars but massive world-wide row once a month.

fucking hell, who needs the patriarchy when women say stuff like this

I can't help but feel that we all grow up with some internalized misogyny. It is had to evade. We also have to be the biggest implementers of the patriarchy as women for it to function smoothly and when we depended on men financially we had even more incentive. While we should challenge this I think it is understandable.

OP posts:

Original poster

OutsideLookingOut · 05/02/2025 20:25

ScholesPanda · 05/02/2025 18:09

I found your comment about Margaret Thatcher being part of the patriarchy interesting. A pp mentioned that a matriarchy would respect carers and put money into health and education. However, if we accept MN is mostly female, judging by the comments made there must be plenty of women who wish to see funds cut for the disabled, seek to advantage themselves and their children through private healthcare and education, moan about any increase to the minimum wage, say that the NHS should be dismantled etc.

So are they reflecting the patriarchy or would these women have the same views in a matriarchy too? At what point does the 'ah well l, that's because we live in a patriarchy' line of arguement become the 'no true Scotsman's fallacy?

Yeah it is so tough to analyse. I think that we would always have self-interest right? I too wonder about the population of women vs men and how they behave. For example if we say that the majority of men are more competitive that doesn't mean every man is however the majority with power win. If women are more cooperative and in the majority and able to exert their will against the minority then would cooperation win? That doesn't mean the world would be a utopia to me. I just think the problems might be different... perhaps less individuality? More biases to people who do not want to have children? Would unconventional women fare better or worse than now?

OP posts:

Verlaine · 05/02/2025 20:24

Apparently King Charles the second observed that if women could tolerate each other they would be a far mightier force than men.

another misogynist prick then

Verlaine · 05/02/2025 20:22

There'd be fewer wars but massive world-wide row once a month.

fucking hell, who needs the patriarchy when women say stuff like this

Original poster

OutsideLookingOut · 05/02/2025 20:21

TheyAreNotAngelsTheyDontCareAtAll · 05/02/2025 17:43

Have you seen any episode of the Apprentice when it's just the all women group doing a task?
Besed on years of observing their behaviour, this country would be buggered in a week.!

Show quote history

I don't mean this to be a cop out but those women are competing to be business partners with a man, again in a patriarchal system. Traditionally to get resources we've had to compete with other women for the favour of men. Also these women while "working together" still need to win. I am not sure if women in a matriarchy would have faced the same issues, had the same upbringings and thus behave in the same way...

OP posts:

ScholesPanda · 05/02/2025 18:09

I found your comment about Margaret Thatcher being part of the patriarchy interesting. A pp mentioned that a matriarchy would respect carers and put money into health and education. However, if we accept MN is mostly female, judging by the comments made there must be plenty of women who wish to see funds cut for the disabled, seek to advantage themselves and their children through private healthcare and education, moan about any increase to the minimum wage, say that the NHS should be dismantled etc.

So are they reflecting the patriarchy or would these women have the same views in a matriarchy too? At what point does the 'ah well l, that's because we live in a patriarchy' line of arguement become the 'no true Scotsman's fallacy?

TheyAreNotAngelsTheyDontCareAtAll · 05/02/2025 17:43

OutsideLookingOut · 03/02/2025 19:09

I don't just mean women in charge, for example when Margaret Thatcher was PM that wasn't a matriarchy - she upheld typical patriarchal systems. I mean in a world primarily shaped by women - some examples might be medical research using female bodies, women seen as the default human.

Would we fall into the inverse problems the patriarchy presents? i.e. the patriarchy can hurt men as well as women - they can't express emotions other than anger because that would be gay or feminine. I wonder if motherhood would be put on a pedestal (though patriarchy has done this forever without actually ever helping women), would we still have capitalism...?

Or would the world be a better place?

Have you seen any episode of the Apprentice when it's just the all women group doing a task?
Besed on years of observing their behaviour, this country would be buggered in a week.!

OneAmberFinch · 05/02/2025 17:39

OutsideLookingOut · 04/02/2025 10:55

I don't think any powerful country that was matriarchal could survive if the others did not follow suit. I think the other countries would see them as weak unless there was a situation like "The Power" where women gain extra powers against men. What do you think?

Show quote history

I agree, we'd be invaded within a week.

I'd be interested in the economy of this matriarchy. Our current one is essentially structured so that money (in general) flows from men to women - either a higher-earning DH in private households, or women being more likely to be net state recipients in the public finances. I'm not sure why they would agree to this either without either "The Power" or some other inducement...

Germanymunch · 04/02/2025 12:29

I think we might be in a better position. No more billions on war and guns, put it into health and education instead. More tolerance for each other, more future planning, better childcare and nurses and carers being paid a fair wage...would solve a lot of societies problems.

ForZanyAquaViewer · 04/02/2025 12:21

OutsideLookingOut · 04/02/2025 10:51

I think that is one of the books that got me thinking about it. I think women would have to have an extra power to sustain it as described in that book but I am not sure they would jus become what men are now (which seems to be what is suggested, I read it a long time ago though).

Show quote history

I read it ages ago, but I remember thinking ‘that makes sense’ as the women basically started treating the men like they (we) had been treated. Is that because it’s a natural response when one has the upper hand on a former aggressor, though? Or is it just the inevitable way of things when one gender has superior strength/power of some sort?

Which, I suppose, was the premise of the book. 🙂

Original poster

OutsideLookingOut · 04/02/2025 10:55

OneAmberFinch · 03/02/2025 21:58

Would the whole world be matriarchal or just one country within it?

I don't think any powerful country that was matriarchal could survive if the others did not follow suit. I think the other countries would see them as weak unless there was a situation like "The Power" where women gain extra powers against men. What do you think?

OP posts:

Original poster

OutsideLookingOut · 04/02/2025 10:53

Leafy74 · 03/02/2025 19:57

There'd be fewer wars but massive world-wide row once a month.

I know this is meant to be light humour but I do wonder actually. If we put women's health first would women suffer so many symptoms or would we have more cures and solutions? Not that everyone gets PMS or PMT at all so there is that too :). And men currently don't even have that excuse.

OP posts:

Original poster

OutsideLookingOut · 04/02/2025 10:51

ForZanyAquaViewer · 03/02/2025 22:16

The Power, by Naomi Alderman might be interesting, as well.

Show quote history

I think that is one of the books that got me thinking about it. I think women would have to have an extra power to sustain it as described in that book but I am not sure they would jus become what men are now (which seems to be what is suggested, I read it a long time ago though).

OP posts:

ForZanyAquaViewer · 03/02/2025 22:16

OutsideLookingOut · 03/02/2025 19:19

Thank you! Going to check this out. What did you think though? Do you think men/boys must be oppressed? Will any ruling class oppress the opposite of them?

Show quote history

The Power, by Naomi Alderman might be interesting, as well.

aurynne · 03/02/2025 22:09

I remember reading a book a long time ago about a breed of vampires who had created a matriarchy by biting into every male newborn baby's skull and piercing the part of the brain that makes men more aggressive, hence rendering males more submissive and with less tendency to aggressiveness.

Initially I was horrified... and then I started thinking whether this would actually be a good idea. Obviously not by piercing the brain, but we have plenty of scientific ways to silence genes. Silenced testosterone production? Imagine how much better the world be with a 75% reduced aggression caused by testosterone.

5128gap · 03/02/2025 22:05

Men have too much biological advantage to be oppressed en masse by women. You can only excercise so much power through the rule of law. If they started to feel we had too much of it there'd be a show of physical strength, riots and revolution and it we'd be back in our place.

IsItAllRubbish · 03/02/2025 22:03

I think most women who are bitchy to other women do so because they have bought into the patriarchy and think they need to fight for “alpha female” status. I think a matriarchy would be better for everyone.

Pussycat22 · 03/02/2025 22:00

Apparently King Charles the second observed that if women could tolerate each other they would be a far mightier force than men.

OneAmberFinch · 03/02/2025 21:58

Would the whole world be matriarchal or just one country within it?

TitusMoan · 03/02/2025 21:56

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

Who’s telling us that? No one wants us at home not earning money, and paying no income tax or NI. It would break the country.

BlueFairyBugsBooks · 03/02/2025 21:53

Leafy74 · 03/02/2025 19:57

There'd be fewer wars but massive world-wide row once a month.

Why once a month? You do know we don't all menstruate at the same time don't you?

And, it could be argued that joking about women's mood swings is misogynistic.

Rachmorr57 · 03/02/2025 21:52

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.