T Nation

Matriarchal Societies


#1

Would a Matriarchal Society offer a better shot at developing a world of Peace and Harmony?

Thoughts?

Thought, I would ask here after reading a TED discussion.

http://www.ted.com/conversations/13708/would_a_matriarchal_society_of.html


#2

I recall reading somewhere that there was a primate society, and iirc, they examined two different groups. One was where the females dominated, and things were more peaceful. The other was dominated by more violent males, and the group kind of suffered.
I really wish I could better remember where I saw that.

Also, apparently bonobos are pretty calm too



#3

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I recall reading somewhere that there was a primate society, and iirc, they examined two different groups. One was where the females dominated, and things were more peaceful. The other was dominated by more violent males, and the group kind of suffered.
I really wish I could better remember where I saw that.

Also, apparently bonobos are pretty calm too


I’m confused. The article you posted is evidence that bonobos as female dominant aren’t actually peaceful.


#4

Yeah, sorry I’m doing too many things at once and sent the post through before finishing what I was writing.


#5

[quote]maverick88 wrote:
Would a Matriarchal Society offer a better shot at developing a world of Peace and Harmony?

Thoughts?

Thought, I would ask here after reading a TED discussion.

http://www.ted.com/conversations/13708/would_a_matriarchal_society_of.html[/quote]

The whole premise based on reversing roles except for child-bearing in the link you posted is fantastical and only reinforces the false notion that child bearing is a negligible(when it is in fact the dominant) factor in the inequality in wages and other facets of society between men and women.

The reality is we don’t live in a patriarchal society and that women throughout history have been preferentially treated in certain aspects(protection from harm while men are sacrificed) while men treated preferentially in others due to their biologically innate roles and environmental pressures.

We live in a society where a small fraction of sociopathic men(who had the empathy beaten out of them primarily by women) now uses women as a powerful voting block by giving them preferential treatment through the welfare state and creating fatherless households where women beat their boys breeding more sociopaths.

Women without the aid of men are the greatest hope in breaking the cycle of violence and sociopathy in society and it has nothing to do with ruling. They just need to stop hitting their kids.


#6

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I recall reading somewhere that there was a primate society, and iirc, they examined two different groups. One was where the females dominated, and things were more peaceful. The other was dominated by more violent males, and the group kind of suffered.
I really wish I could better remember where I saw that.

Also, apparently bonobos are pretty calm too


Chimpanzees and Bonobos are both of the genus Pan. Bonobos relative peacefulness is due to a more cooperative feeding ecology.


#7

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I recall reading somewhere that there was a primate society, and iirc, they examined two different groups. One was where the females dominated, and things were more peaceful. The other was dominated by more violent males, and the group kind of suffered.
I really wish I could better remember where I saw that.

Also, apparently bonobos are pretty calm too


Are you thinking about the Baboon “Forest Troop” where males died of Tuberculosis?


#8

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I recall reading somewhere that there was a primate society, and iirc, they examined two different groups. One was where the females dominated, and things were more peaceful. The other was dominated by more violent males, and the group kind of suffered.
I really wish I could better remember where I saw that.

Also, apparently bonobos are pretty calm too


Are you thinking about the Baboon “Forest Troop” where males died of Tuberculosis?[/quote]
Just looked it up, and I believe that’s the same thing I was trying to remember.


#9

Look at the inner cities. They are female dominated as evidenced by all the single mothers.


#10

Get orion in here. This is his specialty.


#11

[quote]maverick88 wrote:
Would a Matriarchal Society offer a better shot at developing a world of Peace and Harmony?

[/quote]

No it would not. Furthermore, as a concept in and of itself, “delivering a world of peace and harmony” is a fantasy for useful idiots, a scheme for demagogues or maniacs; in short it’s “Utopianism” - this specific variety sprung up amidst the weeds of second wave feminism. It’s typical hard-left nihilism incorporating historical revisionism. Like every good pseudo-academic they start with their theory and search through the pages of history, select specifics and make them “fit” the theory. “Critical theory” is merely the “formalism” of historical revisionism - the falsification of history for the purposes of an ideology.

It’s within this crazy world of irrationalism and absolutism that this “matriarchy is good” movement began. The dogma of the second waves feminists was that there never were matriarchal societies because men are so oppressive as to prevent them in all cases throughout history. Then in the 90’s a schism in the lesbian gender nihilist camp; some pseudo academics pored over Polynesian and African and Indian history and pieced together a narrative of ideal primitive matriarchies existing in Eastern pagan culture that was crushed by…you guessed it: Indo-European(white) warrior cultures.

Within the tissue of lies and latent fascistic misandry of third wave feminism lies a kernel of truth, albeit distorted and woven into a fantasy. Namely, there was an element of matriarchy in some Eastern cultures. There’s a lot of interesting scholarship on the subject. The most interesting work of the 19th Century, although I don’t agree with it all, is Johann Jakob Bachofel’s Mother Right, in which he postulates four phases of social evolution:

  1. Hetaerism: a wild nomadic ‘tellurian’ [= cthonic or earth-centered] phase, characterised by him as communistic and polyamorous, whose dominant deity he believed to have been an earthy proto Aphrodite.

  2. Das Mutterecht: a matriarchal ‘lunar’ phase based on agriculture, characterised by the emergence of chthonic mystery cults and law. Its dominant deity was an early Demeter according to Bachofen.

  3. The Dionysian: a transitional phase when earlier traditions were masculinised as patriarchy began to emerge. Its dominant deity was the original Dionysos.

  4. The Apollonian: the patriarchal ‘solar’ phase, in which all trace of the Matriarchal and Dionysian past was eradicated and modern civilisation emerged.

This view has merit in that it views social history in cyclical terms(social cycle) and correctly related the feminine “forces” with decline.

Julius Evola described the pagan cultures in terms of masculine solar cults and feminine lunar cults. The lunar cults are Eastern in origin; the solar cults Egyptian and/or Indo-European or “Aryan”. Evola then engages in historical revisionism himself in his attempts to formulate a “deep history” or pre-history of the European peoples.

[quote]

Thought, I would ask here after reading a TED discussion.

http://www.ted.com/conversations/13708/would_a_matriarchal_society_of.html[/quote]

I have nothing to add.


#12

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]maverick88 wrote:
Would a Matriarchal Society offer a better shot at developing a world of Peace and Harmony?

[/quote]

No it would not. Furthermore, as a concept in and of itself, “delivering a world of peace and harmony” is a fantasy for useful idiots, a scheme for demagogues or maniacs; in short it’s “Utopianism” - this specific variety sprung up amidst the weeds of second wave feminism. It’s typical hard-left nihilism incorporating historical revisionism. Like every good pseudo-academic they start with their theory and search through the pages of history, select specifics and make them “fit” the theory. “Critical theory” is merely the “formalism” of historical revisionism - the falsification of history for the purposes of an ideology.

It’s within this crazy world of irrationalism and absolutism that this “matriarchy is good” movement began. The dogma of the second waves feminists was that there never were matriarchal societies because men are so oppressive as to prevent them in all cases throughout history. Then in the 90’s a schism in the lesbian gender nihilist camp; some pseudo academics pored over Polynesian and African and Indian history and pieced together a narrative of ideal primitive matriarchies existing in Eastern pagan culture that was crushed by…you guessed it: Indo-European(white) warrior cultures.

Within the tissue of lies and latent fascistic misandry of third wave feminism lies a kernel of truth, albeit distorted and woven into a fantasy. Namely, there was an element of matriarchy in some Eastern cultures. There’s a lot of interesting scholarship on the subject. The most interesting work of the 19th Century, although I don’t agree with it all, is Johann Jakob Bachofel’s Mother Right, in which he postulates four phases of social evolution:

  1. Hetaerism: a wild nomadic ‘tellurian’ [= cthonic or earth-centered] phase, characterised by him as communistic and polyamorous, whose dominant deity he believed to have been an earthy proto Aphrodite.

  2. Das Mutterecht: a matriarchal ‘lunar’ phase based on agriculture, characterised by the emergence of chthonic mystery cults and law. Its dominant deity was an early Demeter according to Bachofen.

  3. The Dionysian: a transitional phase when earlier traditions were masculinised as patriarchy began to emerge. Its dominant deity was the original Dionysos.

  4. The Apollonian: the patriarchal ‘solar’ phase, in which all trace of the Matriarchal and Dionysian past was eradicated and modern civilisation emerged.

This view has merit in that it views social history in cyclical terms(social cycle) and correctly related the feminine “forces” with decline.

Julius Evola described the pagan cultures in terms of masculine solar cults and feminine lunar cults. The lunar cults are Eastern in origin; the solar cults Egyptian and/or Indo-European or “Aryan”. Evola then engages in historical revisionism himself in his attempts to formulate a “deep history” or pre-history of the European peoples.

[quote]

Thought, I would ask here after reading a TED discussion.

http://www.ted.com/conversations/13708/would_a_matriarchal_society_of.html[/quote]

I have nothing to add.[/quote]

What are your thoughts of Evola’s metaphysics of sex?


#13

The US is turning into a Matriarchy.

How’s that been going?


#14

[quote]Bismark wrote:

What are your thoughts of Evola’s metaphysics of sex?[/quote]

I have fundamental disagreements with much of what he says and the conclusions he draws. Evola was deeply spiritual and had his own idiosyncratic metaphysical belief system. He took up the social cycle theme with the political cycle and a Spenglerian social cycle all emphasising decline and the final phase of the cycle; he identified modernity as a manifestation of nihilism; identified matriarchy as a primitive state and a state of dysfunction or decline. He contrasted it with patriarchy as a force of virility, strength, hierarchy, order, rationality and the fundamental basis for civilisation. A rather interesting “perspective”.

He also describes these social forces as essentially spiritual forces as, pagan society had no concept of “separation of church and state”. The “religion” as it were of Western pagans being every aspect of their lives and social forces we see today such as feminism and even radical misandry were manifest for thousands of years and deep into “prehistory” in various cult movements - the solar and the lunar,

Evola was a great scholar and did a lot of research on contemporary sources from the ancient world that had been overlooked by academia. Particularly stuff that was outre to Enlightenment orthodoxy. He had an obsession with Orientalism and Eastern mysticism. And he developed his own worldview and spiritual belief system and wrote from this perspective; very sure of himself. But he was fundamentally wrong on a number of things and bombastic; annoying at times.

To put it as simply as possible I side with the early Christians on the “complimentary” nature of man and women in opposition to “egalitarianism” and all the craziness that flows on from that. And there are repelling and attracting; counteracting; complimenting; completing each other both in biological and social terms. Evola went into some Taoist ideas of dualism. But this is where Evola goes off the wall with his own idiosyncratic system extolling the spiritual “power” of “joining essences” - Evola was a hedonist going by his writings on the act of sex itself; some kind of tantric extremist; a guy in a raincoat; a pervert. This was pretty common with the far-right Italian intelligentsia before The First World War.

Edited


#15

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]maverick88 wrote:
Would a Matriarchal Society offer a better shot at developing a world of Peace and Harmony?

[/quote]

No it would not. Furthermore, as a concept in and of itself, “delivering a world of peace and harmony” is a fantasy for useful idiots, a scheme for demagogues or maniacs; in short it’s “Utopianism” - this specific variety sprung up amidst the weeds of second wave feminism. It’s typical hard-left nihilism incorporating historical revisionism. Like every good pseudo-academic they start with their theory and search through the pages of history, select specifics and make them “fit” the theory. “Critical theory” is merely the “formalism” of historical revisionism - the falsification of history for the purposes of an ideology.

It’s within this crazy world of irrationalism and absolutism that this “matriarchy is good” movement began. The dogma of the second waves feminists was that there never were matriarchal societies because men are so oppressive as to prevent them in all cases throughout history. Then in the 90’s a schism in the lesbian gender nihilist camp; some pseudo academics pored over Polynesian and African and Indian history and pieced together a narrative of ideal primitive matriarchies existing in Eastern pagan culture that was crushed by…you guessed it: Indo-European(white) warrior cultures.

Within the tissue of lies and latent fascistic misandry of third wave feminism lies a kernel of truth, albeit distorted and woven into a fantasy. Namely, there was an element of matriarchy in some Eastern cultures. There’s a lot of interesting scholarship on the subject. The most interesting work of the 19th Century, although I don’t agree with it all, is Johann Jakob Bachofel’s Mother Right, in which he postulates four phases of social evolution:

  1. Hetaerism: a wild nomadic ‘tellurian’ [= cthonic or earth-centered] phase, characterised by him as communistic and polyamorous, whose dominant deity he believed to have been an earthy proto Aphrodite.

  2. Das Mutterecht: a matriarchal ‘lunar’ phase based on agriculture, characterised by the emergence of chthonic mystery cults and law. Its dominant deity was an early Demeter according to Bachofen.

  3. The Dionysian: a transitional phase when earlier traditions were masculinised as patriarchy began to emerge. Its dominant deity was the original Dionysos.

  4. The Apollonian: the patriarchal ‘solar’ phase, in which all trace of the Matriarchal and Dionysian past was eradicated and modern civilisation emerged.

This view has merit in that it views social history in cyclical terms(social cycle) and correctly related the feminine “forces” with decline.

Julius Evola described the pagan cultures in terms of masculine solar cults and feminine lunar cults. The lunar cults are Eastern in origin; the solar cults Egyptian and/or Indo-European or “Aryan”. Evola then engages in historical revisionism himself in his attempts to formulate a “deep history” or pre-history of the European peoples.

[quote]

Thought, I would ask here after reading a TED discussion.

http://www.ted.com/conversations/13708/would_a_matriarchal_society_of.html[/quote]

I have nothing to add.[/quote]

“Then in the 90’s a schism in the lesbian gender nihilist camp; some pseudo academics pored over Polynesian and African and Indian history and pieced together a narrative of ideal primitive matriarchies existing in Eastern pagan culture that was crushed by…you guessed it: Indo-European(white) warrior cultures.”

This seems to be the go to in every discussion in regard matriarchies usually brought up be a few women.

Ignoring their narrative of “that was crushed by…you guessed it: Indo-European(white) warrior cultures.”

What were the downfalls/decline/or flaws of such societies? Did they even truly exist as true Matriarchies?


#16

Although I don’t wholly agree with it, Tickner’s feminist reformulation of Morgenthau’s principles of political realism is interesting. Feminism challenges traditional conceptions of international relations.

  1. A feminist perspective believes that objectivity, as it is culturally defined, is associated with masculinity. Therefore, supposedly “objective” laws of human nature are based on a’partial, masculine view ofhuman nature. Human nature is both masculine and feminine; it contains elements of social reproduction and development as vyell as political domination. Dynamic objectivityoffers us a more connected view of obj ectivity with less potential for domination.
  2. A feminist perspectivi believes that the national interest is multidimensional and contextually contingent. Therefore, it cannot be defined solely in terms of power. In the contemporary world the national interest demands cooperative rather than zero sum solutions to a set of inter,dependent global problems which include nuclear war, economic well-being and environmental degradation.
  3. Power cannot be infused with meaning that is universally valid.Power as dom­ination and control privileges masculinity and ignores the possibility of collec­ tive empowerment, another aspect ofpower often associated with femininity.
  4. A feminist perspective rejects the possibilityg of separating morhl command from political action. All political action has moral significance. The realist agenda for maximizing order through power and control gives priority to the moral command of order over those of justice and the satisfaction of basic needs necessary to ensure social reproduction.
  5. While recognizing that the moral aspirations of particular nations cannot be equated with universal moral principles, a feminist perspective seeks to find common moral elements in human aspirations which could become the basis for de-escalating in�li;lrnational conflict and building international community.
  6. A feminist perspective denies the autonomy of the political. Since auton­ omy is associated with masculinity in Western culture, disciplinary efforts to construct a world view which does not rest on a pluralistic conception of human nature are partial and masculine. Building boundaries around a narrowly defined political realm defines political in a way that excludes the concerns and contributions ofwomen.

#17

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]maverick88 wrote:
Would a Matriarchal Society offer a better shot at developing a world of Peace and Harmony?

[/quote]

No it would not. Furthermore, as a concept in and of itself, “delivering a world of peace and harmony” is a fantasy for useful idiots, a scheme for demagogues or maniacs; in short it’s “Utopianism” - this specific variety sprung up amidst the weeds of second wave feminism. It’s typical hard-left nihilism incorporating historical revisionism. Like every good pseudo-academic they start with their theory and search through the pages of history, select specifics and make them “fit” the theory. “Critical theory” is merely the “formalism” of historical revisionism - the falsification of history for the purposes of an ideology.

It’s within this crazy world of irrationalism and absolutism that this “matriarchy is good” movement began. The dogma of the second waves feminists was that there never were matriarchal societies because men are so oppressive as to prevent them in all cases throughout history. Then in the 90’s a schism in the lesbian gender nihilist camp; some pseudo academics pored over Polynesian and African and Indian history and pieced together a narrative of ideal primitive matriarchies existing in Eastern pagan culture that was crushed by…you guessed it: Indo-European(white) warrior cultures.

Within the tissue of lies and latent fascistic misandry of third wave feminism lies a kernel of truth, albeit distorted and woven into a fantasy. Namely, there was an element of matriarchy in some Eastern cultures. There’s a lot of interesting scholarship on the subject. The most interesting work of the 19th Century, although I don’t agree with it all, is Johann Jakob Bachofel’s Mother Right, in which he postulates four phases of social evolution:

  1. Hetaerism: a wild nomadic ‘tellurian’ [= cthonic or earth-centered] phase, characterised by him as communistic and polyamorous, whose dominant deity he believed to have been an earthy proto Aphrodite.

  2. Das Mutterecht: a matriarchal ‘lunar’ phase based on agriculture, characterised by the emergence of chthonic mystery cults and law. Its dominant deity was an early Demeter according to Bachofen.

  3. The Dionysian: a transitional phase when earlier traditions were masculinised as patriarchy began to emerge. Its dominant deity was the original Dionysos.

  4. The Apollonian: the patriarchal ‘solar’ phase, in which all trace of the Matriarchal and Dionysian past was eradicated and modern civilisation emerged.

This view has merit in that it views social history in cyclical terms(social cycle) and correctly related the feminine “forces” with decline.

Julius Evola described the pagan cultures in terms of masculine solar cults and feminine lunar cults. The lunar cults are Eastern in origin; the solar cults Egyptian and/or Indo-European or “Aryan”. Evola then engages in historical revisionism himself in his attempts to formulate a “deep history” or pre-history of the European peoples.

[quote]

Thought, I would ask here after reading a TED discussion.

http://www.ted.com/conversations/13708/would_a_matriarchal_society_of.html[/quote]

I have nothing to add.[/quote]

“Then in the 90’s a schism in the lesbian gender nihilist camp; some pseudo academics pored over Polynesian and African and Indian history and pieced together a narrative of ideal primitive matriarchies existing in Eastern pagan culture that was crushed by…you guessed it: Indo-European(white) warrior cultures.”

This seems to be the go to in every discussion in regard matriarchies usually brought up be a few women.

Ignoring their narrative of “that was crushed by…you guessed it: Indo-European(white) warrior cultures.”

What were the downfalls/decline/or flaws of such societies? Did they even truly exist as true Matriarchies?[/quote]

Not true matriarchies but many primitive societies are matriarchal and the dysfunctional family structures contribute to the kind of “youth” lawlessness in a Ferguson and elsewhere.