There's evolutionary factors driving human societies to drift towards male-dominated structures (like that whole enormous hassle pregnancy poses in early civilizations). Doesn't mean it's somehow the right way for society to be, just that any society that developed a different way would have had a significant reason.
I'm doing a matriarchal culture in a sort of fantasy setting I've been working on. Similar to rome. In their case, the reason is that much of their culture is derived from the culture of a slave race subjected to extensive social engineering (with unusual gender roles being one inadvertent side effect). Rather like if an unnatural organism was created in a lab, only to escape into the wild and begin to reproduce, so that it now evolves naturally even though natural evolution would never have produced it.
For this culture, the Rulaani, the traditional gender roles resemble the "red oni/blue oni" trope. Men are seen as the passionate gender- impulsive, more driven by feelings and desires. Where our culture talks about a women's mysterious ways (aka basic social intelligence), rulaani allude to the "mysterious power of men" (aka basic emotional intelligence). Roles like singers and public speakers are seen as highly masculine because they're about stirring the hearts of the crowd. Way back when the city-state of Rulaan hit that point where they could have people who were soldiers as a full time job, men were initially assumed to be unfit for the role; it was assumed they would lack the necessary discipline needed to march in formation, hold the line, etc. A rulaani drill sergeant might reprimand a too-eager soldier by asking if she left her codpiece back in her tent.
Women, by contrast, are seen as naturally being stronger in terms of rational thought, self control, and "playing the long game." Senior leadership positions in every aspect of society are inevitably held by older women, whereas older men are typically seen as past the sell-by date and often tasked with more domestic roles in their guild.
Beyond that, social progress has lead to relatively high equality of opportunity in Rulaani society. They still view various kinds of strength as being inherent to a specific gender, but believe those strengths can be taught- that men can learn self-control with guidance from women, and in turn are the ones who teach women how to love their children and so on.
All fictional, of course. But it's fun to think about.
I don't agree with Paglia.
First of all: why is living in grass huts such a bad thing? We (modern humans) love to say how great modernity and technological advancements are. However, isn't it also true that our modern world and our modern lifestyle cause us many problems?
Yes, if we lived in grass huts, there would be no modern medicine and no internet. But there also wouldn't be warfare on a gigantic level, there wouldn't be cell phone addiction and fast food and there wouldn't be any global warming. The dinosaurs occupied this planet for 160 million years. Modern human beings have been here for about 100,000 years (or 0.06% of the dinosaur's time) and this planet has already gone to shit. I'm not sure if that's something to be proud of.
Secondly, matriarchal societies actually do exist. They're rare but they do exist. A very interesting example would be Bhutan. Although there is a king in the small, central Asian country, women generally hold all the social and most of the political power. They are the head of a household and property is always inherited to the women. Women make all the important decisions, basically. Now, Bhutan isn't the most developed country in the world but they do have a very rich culture and absolutely beautiful architecture. They've also managed to stay out of wars for a long time. But the most fascinating detail about Bhutan is the fact that it is the only country in the world which has officially declared 'happiness' to be it's supreme goal. All other countries want to make their populations richer, Bhutan believes that money is not everything and it's more important to be happy than to be rich.
www.oneworldeducation.org/bhutan-worlds-happiest-country
But there is another reason why matriarchy wouldn't be as bad as everyone claims: the fact that women are in charge doesn't really have anything to do with technological advancements. We know that women are just as intelligent as men and also as curious/interested/inquisitive as men. So if women ruled the world, there would still be education, universities, research and all that stuff. In fact, there might be MORE of these things since women tend to recognize the value of these things more.
And if there is education, there can be men who become doctors or engineers or carpenters or molecular biologists. I don't understand why everyone makes this strange logical fallacy of "women in charge = no jobs". These issues are completely unrelated.
Lemme say in short:
Technology would be same. Women do have different way of thinking and stuff but it wouldn't affect technology.
Welfare, depends highly on the ones who lead. I believe it could be a lot better in some places and a lot worse in others because women are naturally more emotional and can have deep feeling of empathy. So the rest depends on her mindset.
Politics, oh lord. It would be so much worse if the society was matriarchal. Female politicians ain't bad, a high number of women bring involved with politics ain't wrong either, but on top position, very rare women actually deserve that position.
Regarding that quote, I really don't know. Because the society is not matriarchal, either ways we can think of the best case scenario and worst case scenario. But since politics is so influential, I think I'm very slightly on the agree side. Not necessarily grass huts cause technology would be same, but the instability would cause harm to the economy.
Civilization was be just fine. There would be less wars, inventions would mostly stay the same and men would have never created the atom bomb or guns.
The same as is it today just that women would be considered the dominant. It wouldn't be better I think.
Opinion
18Opinion
BEST QUESTION EVER! Here's my response:
Men have always been the pushers of civilization throughout history. Everything you see today: iPhone, your house, streets, cars, buildings, tv, etc... all invented, built, and maintained by a man. Do you think women could go down into the mining shafts? Of course not. How about the oil rigs at below freezing? Heavy construction work? Roofing in July? 😅. Wars have been fought and won by men. All the greatest people and thinkers, all men. Men have a biologically driven nature to achieve and compete. That's what has pushed society forward back then and now.
The idea that civilizations have been run by men is technically true, but it's not the whole truth. In most civilizations 99% of both men and women were equal, as in having no, or very few rights and opportunities and they both toiled away performing physical labor (the idea of the housewife is relatively modern and comes from the upper class, most women performed backbreaking labor just like men, for most of history). An elite nobility stood at the top and those people may as well have been a third sex. I'm pretty sure that if you had exchanged the few men at the very top with women not much would have changed and historical examples with queens/empresses/regentesses seem to support that. Female leaders are under just as much pressure from their populace or inner circle to wage wars over resources, develop land, construct religious monuments, etc...
I believe that a world run by women would be peaceful-ish (no violent wars, but more cold wars). I also believe that a world run by women would, as Paglia quoted, be a lot less advanced, as women seem to lack the competitiveness about being the first/best to do something, and instead focus on more practical.
For example, If women were in charge during the "Space race" I think they would have just scrapped it all together and put the money into other things such as healthcare. Although Healthcare is an important thing to fund, the curiosity and competitiveness that men have in abundance is a huge factor in why this world is so advanced.
Women, alone, cannot rule the world because they are physically not strong enough to dominate men. They would require a bunch of men to force other men to obey. Additionally, feminine societies would not last very long if faced with a foreign invasion. More importantly, women do not work well together. Even though, the experimentation that I've seen is a small sampling, women do not work well with other women. There is so much drama. Men care more about a just society while women care more about emotional or caring society.
If women ruled the world, we'd have no wars. Instead, we'd have a bunch of upset countries not talking to each other but slut shaming behind each other's backs for the way they dress.
I think social wise will be different if it was a matriarchy system. Technology wouldn't be affected because we would probably come up with it anyway.
I do think that we will have more women choice and suffrage movement would probably be different or not existante. Equal pay controversy would probably never show up either.
In this day and age women go to school and some study engineering, archeticture and the such... basically some women are helping with technology these days... however that was possible because of men, men push harder, are much more into going after what they want (go getters ) they are not emotional and are goal oriented, basically women are too emotional to follow up with their plans and goals, some do but most lose sight of their goal along the way and find something more emotionally fulfilling to occupy their time with.
in all honesty i dont feel that women have what it takes to lead the world, you need a leader with an iron first, and women can't do that.
this is really hard to say, as women today would be different, less forceably sheltered, and much further advanced in technology. humans adapt to their surroundings and evolve. I do however believe that we would be further along globally as a people. technology is usually born of a need and may even be more advanced than today, due to physical or desire restrictions.
chances are it'd result in the same however the roles would be reversed.
She has a point. All the great civilisations were built by patriarchy. For thousands of years civilisation and soceity has been advanced by men to make life easier and better for all.
Paglia's quote is only valid in some climates. I can't imagine Canadians living in grass huts.
There wouldn't be war, because conflicting countries would just stop contact.
I think history went the way it was supposed to go.
well i agree with her men are the machines who accomplished it and
each of this men did things because of Pussies around them,
man achieved it! but the women's were the uncredited fuel behind the accomplishment
Itd be exactly the same humans are humans we fuck up trip and slip just how being human works whether your male or female
I think men are more interested in technical things but women care more about equality among people, she a matriarchal society might live in huts but it'd probably be a lot more equal than today's society
I feel like society would be less violent and more business like
God what a fuckinh nightmare. Nope. Rather not let my mind dip into such dark places.
i agree with cubste, thechnology is only for boys and not girls
feminism wouldn't be a thing, meninism would be
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions