Most civilizations through history have been patriarchy and dominated by men. But I'm curious on how you think it would be if it was dominated by women and I'm curious if you are agree with Paglia's quote or not. Please mention technology, warfare, politics etc. in this discussion. Explain why you've your opinion.
#Civilization #Matriarchy #FemaleCivilization
Most Helpful Girl
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.3THIS IS NOT RELEVANT ANYMORE
- Show AllShow Less
Most Helpful Guy
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.
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.
2THIS IS NOT RELEVANT ANYMORE