Just For Fun, Create Your Own Matriarchy

[user1468530091]

Here is an example

thegoggin.blogspot.com/2014/02/normal-0-false-false-false-en-gb-x-none.html

bump

Caring professions dominated by women such as nursing, childcare, teaching etc would command six figure salaries. Careers in banking, IT and sales would be looked down upon, poorly paid and regarded as jobs men do for 'pin money'.

read the post, thought it was quite funny. there's an unbelievably whiny response from an MRA directly underneath it though

Fuck! What a whiny pissbaby comment!

Not sure about a matriarchy, but what I would like to see right now would be;

Men who pay women so they can have sex on them criminalised.

Women all over the world able to access safe sanitary protection and clean water.

Women all over the world to be able to access contraception, without any reference to the men in their lives and to be able to access abortion services at any point in their pregnancy.

For the invisible work that women do, caring, wifework, housework and volunteering to be recognised for the enormous social contribution it makes. A nod from the rest of the world to say thank you for doing all this stuff so that the economy doesn't die under the pressure of having to do everything that you do would be nice.

For all medical trials to include women and PoC so that we don't have any nasty shocks about awful side effects in those groups after drugs have been licenced.

For gynaecological and obstetric services tailored to women who have been the victims of rape and abuse to be available in more than just London. Or even for some kind of training for people who will have to perform invasive intimate procedures on women who have been victims, so that they understand how difficult that is, and why some women might not want to be constantly nagged to have a smear after the HCP was dismissive and rude the last time.

Non gender specific sport at schools not convinced that would be good for women in. Matriarchy. I'd put men who sexually assault in to prison for life where they take classes on feminism until they die

Xenophile, that's all very nice, but that'd be an equal society, not a matriarchy.

Though I have to admit, the differences aren't that big - women just don't have a need to oppress men. The matriarchy described in the linked article doesn't much appeal to me - why on earth would I want to have naked men on page 3?

BapsOfSteel, if I had a say in it, girls would do strength training at school. The female body needs more exercise to maintain muscle mass than the male body, and I'd want girls to be as strong as boys, or at least not at as much of a disadvantage. The boys could do dancing instead. Or take lessons on how to respect women's boundaries. (Okay, that would not be gender-specific, it would be sex specific)

Strength training, if done efficiently, allegedly is only necessary two times a week, so after school sportsy activities could be freely chosen.

Okay, not matriarchy, either, just equality. I suppose I, too, am just too nice to invent a matriarchy that does to men what men in real life to do women.

The only thing I can come up with, and I actually suspect that's just equality, too: No paternity rights for unmarried fathers, or married fathers who didn't do at least 50% of childcare for at least a year.
I mean, really, what does a man contribute to a pregnancy? Five minutes of fun - why should that entitle him to any rights?

No paternity rights for unmarried fathers

This is what the law is.

Births registered in England and Wales
Unmarried parents
An unmarried father can get parental responsibility for his child in 1 of 3 ways:

jointly registering the birth of the child with the mother (from 1 December 2003)
getting a parental responsibility agreement with the mother
getting a parental responsibility order from a court
Births registered in Scotland
An unmarried father has parental responsibility if he’s named on the child’s birth certificate (from 4 May 2006).

I mean, really, what does a man contribute to a pregnancy? Five minutes of fun - why should that entitle him to any rights?

Have you ever been pregnant? I have and I actually find that comment pretty offensive. Do you see men as just sperm donors?

Have you ever been pregnant?

No, but if I had been, I am quite sure my opinion would not change, but instead be reinforced. If your partner supported you during pregnancy, that's great, but that's optional. Men do not do this as a matter of course, and should not be granted any rights on the mere assumption that they did it.

Do you see men as just sperm donors?

If they are, yes. Currently, men who are just sperm donors can get paternity rights by proving that they contributed sperm. Nothing more. At least that's the law where I live, and I don't think it is that different in the UK. I would be very surprised if courts actually demanded proof that a man did any actual childcare, much less 50%.

Pretending that the world already is as it should be has never been a good strategy for feminism. Women having casual sex pretending that the average man cares about their pleasure as much as they do about his has turned out to be a bad idea for many - see the linked article's statement on teenage sexuality.

We have to look at reality like it is, and act according to that.

Got to say I agree with VestalVirgin 100% on this - I am pregnant now, and I've already had one baby, and the amount that a bloke does to create a child compared to the woman is just laughable. I have a lovely husband, but he didn't give up any of the things I gave up (such as alcohol, going out), he didn't have morning sickness for 3 months, he didn't have mood swings, pimples all over his back, kidney pain, back pain, constant thrush, indigestion, profusely bleeding gums, several doctors' appointments where I had to spread my legs and be probed, or two little feet kicking me in the fanny from the inside out for a number of months. Oh yeah and childbirth. He didn't have to do any of that, although he was lovely and supportive, to his credit.

In fact by the end of the pregnancy I was so enraged at the unfairness of it all that I point-blank refused that the baby would just have his name (talk about making my sacrifice invisible!) and instead we settled for a double-barrelled name, with mine at the end, because I didn't want to be sandwiched into oblivion. He really wanted his at the end but tough shit. I did all the heavy lifting, thank you very much. And we haven't even begun to mention the 20 months of breastfeeding and the fact that I was the primary caregiver for at least the first year.

So no, I don't think men are just sperm donors if they have committed to the mother and the child, but you can't argue that they do as much as the woman. My SIL got pregnant at 15 from a fumble behind the bike sheds. She has raised and loved the child at great personal and physical cost, and the idea that the biological father (who never paid any attention) might one day demand visitation or parental rights, having done literally nothing but ejaculate irresponsibly as a child, offends me deeply.

And in my matriarchy, the children will always take the maternal name, and can take the paternal name as a middle name if the father wishes. I can't believe that isn't already the norm!

The law doesn't much talk of fathers' or mothers' rights. (Other than within Care and Supervision matters - where the Human Rights Act is engaged)

Instead, its concerned about the child having a good relationship with its parents - the underlying theme, is that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration.

Vestl, I think you're confusing a matriarchal society with a society run by women who want to act just like men, and really, who the fuck wants that? If we are seriously suggesting that having women in charge would just mean more of the same but with compulsory public breast feeding, you can count me out.

Plus of course, I did say that I didn't know what a matriarchy would look like, and gave a wish list of things that could happen right now that would significantly improve women's lives, outwith the demands of patriarchal wank badgery.

I think the only way to get a matriarchy would be to have a fairly promiscous society where men really didn't know if children were theirs or not. That would then mean property/money and therefore power would be transferred through the maternal line.
Of course society would need to heavily penalise guarding behaviour by men.

I do find this very interesting because I read a lot of fantasy/sci-fi and I've not read many convincing depictions of a matriarchy. The best one I think is in Dark Eden and that's in a very small society that has absolutely nothing and is very interrelated.

I'm really interested in whether a patriarchy is even possible for humans. The high risk of death in childbirth, and territorial behaviour encouraging wars and marriage for assets plus hidden ovulation encouraging men guarding their wives sexuality makes me think a patriarchy is inevitable. Which is pretty depressing.

do find this very interesting because I read a lot of fantasy/sci-fi and I've not read many convincing depictions of a matriarchy. The best one I think is in Dark Eden and that's in a very small society that has absolutely nothing and is very interrelated

It's very interesting and if you've read the sequel Mother of Eden the matriarchy breaks down as numbers increase and mechanisation kicks in.

Here is another one ; it involves genetically enhanced spiders. (It's a great read!)

Children of Time
www.amazon.co.uk/Children-Time-Adrian-Tchaikovsky/dp/1447273281

Currently, men who are just sperm donors can get paternity rights by proving that they contributed sperm.

They also have to pay child maintenance for "contributing sperm" so it seems like a fair trade.

Thanks lass! I have read adrian Tchaikovsky shadows of the apt series so I might give that a go!

'They also have to pay child maintenance for "contributing sperm" so it seems like a fair trade.'

You do realise dey that women contribute money to the upbringing of their children as well as growing and carrying the child in their body, risking their lives to bring them into the world, and caring for them day in and day out?

So how in all of God's fuck is contributing some money 'a fair trade'????

Besides, thousands of so-called fathers contribute absolutely nothing to the children they produce, so in fact they don't 'have to'.

Besides, thousands of so-called fathers contribute absolutely nothing to the children they produce, so in fact they don't 'have to'.

Well, if you're going to play it like that, 1000s of men don't get paternity rights either!
My point was a counter to Vestal's. Men who have contributed sperm get access, but also have to pay for their child so they're not contributing nothing. Unless they are, but then many don't have access.
And no, the way you put it, money for gestating a baby isn't a fair trade, but who was comparing that?

The law, as it applies in E&W, is clear - its not a case of having to pay maintenance for a child in order to have contact. The two issues have nothing to do with each other.

A father has responsibility for his children - and should help financially with a child's upbringing whether he has contact or not.

The law doesn't really speak of parental rights (other than in care proceedings etc), if there were such considerations as father's or mother's rights, this might then clash with the principle that the child's welfare was 'paramount'.

That comment made me laugh...

I don't want to sign up for the matriarchy in the blog post either, though - it's a "if women were like men" society, with some pretty oppressive laws thrown in, not one where women enjoy an ingrained position of superiority.

Eg it wouldn't need to be illegal not to write about a woman's weight, if our society didn't fetishize the female body. Obligatory naked men in the papers isn't matriarchal.

Dey, thousands of fathers have access and pay no money. I personally know two women who are absolutely run ragged organising and supporting access between their children and the dads who pay absolutely nothing.

Yes, that was my point. Thousands of dad's have access and pay no money, thousands of dad's pay money and have no access.
The two are not related, or dependant on each other.
So why mention the fact that dad's can have access without contributing anything without mentioning the situations where they do contribute and don't get access?
I know people in both situations and it's awful for both.

When I think about what a Matriarchy could be, it gets me thinking about what a Matriarchy cannot be, if it is to be anything other than a sticking plaster over a few small areas of life which Patriarchy does not value.

I think that Matriarchy is not the same as women succeeding as good single parents despite Patriarchy's best efforts to demonise them. These women are often described as "strong" women. They may indeed be strong and they are often described as matriarchs, but that doesn't make them members of a Matriarchy yet.

I think that Matriarchy within our current Patriarchy is impossible because Patriarchy is all-encompassing and exclusive. Above-average female influence in some places does not exist in a Patriarchy-free bubble. The fate of a handful of small Amazonian tribes and Chinese hill tribes, sometimes claimed as matriarchies, is dependent on patriarchal governments which have, until now, decided that these small groups have been neutralised enough and aren't yet worth the effort to destroy.