Suppose we switched from Patriarchy to Matriarchy?

Post Reply New Topic

So, do you think women are inferior, too? And do you think economic growth is the measure of all things?

I, personally, don't believe inferiority is an objective thing. You can say that's the sort of thing an inferior being would say, but whatever.

I'd like to add that this is where separatist feminism comes from. I get the urge to try to escape from all people who see me as inferior. I can't describe how incredibly shitty it feels to be in the company of such people.

In that case, why is separatist feminism a fringe movement with fewer than 10,000 followers worldwide? Why do most women(and most men too)prefer to live with members of the opposite sex rather than apart from them? I think that gender separatists(and this includes so-called "Men Going Their Own Way" which is abbreviated as MGTOW)are people who have personal issues with the the opposite sex.



I admit that I too have these tendencies as I get sick and tired of women who tell me I'm a "creepy" guy for things that I cannot control and/or look down upon me for being socially inept.

Women either actually believe they are inferior (but won't say it) or they think that men who think that women are inferior are in a small minority.

I don't have time in my life for anyone who sees me as not on the same level of humanity as them, if only because I think such people are misguided about how to live life (striving after dominance is no way to be happy) - I don't want them to drag me down into that silly game.

Separatist feminism becomes obsolete in a matriarchal society where women are cherished as superior beings. Males who will see more love and nourishing under a matriarchal society will also gladly integrate once their eyes are open.

My post was fairly simple to understand, when we look at history, the male dominated society is a fairly common constant among highly successful groups and nations, when this is the case one has to conclude that A: It works, and B: There is a reason for this model becoming the most successful one. If other societal organization models were competitive you would have a more varied distribution of models in actual life. You would have had egalitarian, matriarchal and patriarchal societies left and right, all thriving.

One of my main arguments in earlier debates on the female role in the modern world was that if females in the position of C-level executives, management and company boards lead to higher earnings, higher market capitalizations, or whatever measuring stick being used (although those two are the most common ones). Then women in those positions can be viewed as a source of competitive advantage and companies would either utilize this to their benefit, or lose out versus competition that did.

My approach to most things is "Does it work?" I'm not convinced that softer values have had a purely positive effect and that the continued emphasis on softer values in just about every field will produce a net gain based on the statistics I've seen. That is not to say that females are in any way inferior, just different. Female values work better in some areas, male values in others.

If it can be demonstrated that economic growth is better with male values at the helm, then that is how it should be run. If it turns out that you get better growth with female values, then that is how it should be run. If it is shown that it is better with a mix of the two, then that is how it should be run. That is not to say that economic growth is everything, but as Winston Churchill said " Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon." by large, the luxury that most of the western world enjoys at present is due to capitalism and innovation, two things that are notoriously competitive. We should not give up our competitive advantages in order to give lip service to "how it should be".


Naturally everything that has happened since the 1940s can hardly be attributed to gender politics, doing so would be an obvious fallacy.

Last edited by TM on 31 Oct 2012, 7:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Economic growth is a measure of success. Those societies that generate wealth have an impact upon the world. And economic prosperity is positively correlated with scientific achievements, education and happiness, for instance.

And no, I do not believe that women are inferior. I do believe, however, that feminism is grossly inferior to mainstream science from a scientific perspective, and that feminism is an incoherent political ideology and an intellectual dead end.



No sell.

My skill at running one hundred metres as swiftly as possible is inferior to the equivalent skill of Usain Bolt.

Strength (measured by relative and absolute muscle volume) in women is statistically inferior to the equivalent strength in men.

Brain size in women is statistically inferior to the equivalent brain size in men.

Grey to white brain matter ratio in men is statistically inferior to the equivalent grey to white brain matter ratio in women.



In other words, inferiority can easily be described in scientific terms (=objective).

Speaking as a biologist, you are incorrect. there is a difference between "dominant" and "superior."

As far as economics goes, I am not an expert but I agree with a couple of nobel-winning economists that laissez-faire economics inevitably results in market crashes that take out huge proportions of the economy through no fault of anyone but the dominant (note: not 'superior') capitalists.


Come the zombie apocalypse, then, Usain Bolt will be more likely to survive than you or me. In that context, he would be dominant. Right, now, a grossly obese real-estate magnate, while inferior in physical skills, would still be socially dominant to Bolt should the two get involved in a legal dispute.

Men and women have statistically similar encephalization quotients. I have met quite a few large men, with bigger heads and brains than mine, who were complete imbeciles.

Girls do better in school and go to college in higher numbers than boys and men do. Therefore, girls and women must be superior to boys and men. (/sarcasm)

Last edited by LKL on 31 Oct 2012, 7:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.

There's no overall status of inferiority, though - only a collection of data according to different attributes. As for the correlation of economic growth with education and happiness, this only occurs with a combination of economic growth and 'soft attitudes' - like providing universal education primary education after the industrial revolution was completed.

Not all feminists are in contention with mainstream science, either - I'm not. As for the political implications of feminism, that's another debate.

If strength were the only consideration of superiority then gorillas would be the super race.

As far as intellect men may possess higher specialized brain functions but women beat men for a woman has a more general comprehensive genius rather than a mans expertise in a myopic subject area.

Being competitive and analytical aren't traits unique to men, though I agree that they're the best way to run a business. I think we see these values too much as gendered. There is a biological element to people having preferences for different values, but this has been exaggerated by the fact that in earlier states of civilisation, we needed a tight, gendered specialisation of roles. I would argue that we don't now. At least if anyone tries to tell me to get in the gender box, I will tell them to GTFO. In earlier times, I probably would've become a nun if I had that option. I think it's in the interests of society now to give people ample wiggle room with gender roles.

Please provide a detailed rebuttal based on biology which is relevant to this discussion, then...


The currently available evidence supports that high levels of economic freedom, low barriers to international trade, low public expenditure and high human capital generates economic growth. (Both TM and I have elaborated extensively on this elsewhere on WP).

Sounds pretty laissez-faire to me...

Damn... this thread is moving *fast*. 3 new posts while I was writing this...

In a patriarchal society a man cannot really be satisfied working as a nurse because his job description would be too limiting. For these types of men being a combat medic would be a better fit.

In a matriarchal society female nurses are trusted and are not held back as glorified maids but have equal responsibilities as would a combat medic who is able to perform emergency surgical operations.

Speaking as someone with a little knowledge when it comes to economics, laissez-faire economics cannot result in market crashes of anywhere near the magnitude of the 1929 crash and 2008 crashes without massive aid from Government. What causes such a market crash is simply put when enormous amounts of in reality non-existent capital is allocated poorly. At some stage someone is left holding the bill for the party (the bubble) that preceded it and the size of this bubble is directly correlated with the supply of capital (which is controlled by government).

Government money printing, combined with low interest rates (cheap credit) leads to speculative bubbles. In embryo, the reason for market crashes and depressions are the boom and bust cycles in a country, or in the world, by the only entities that have the power to make an impact on such a wide scale, namely government(s). There is a reason why Keynesian spending tends to be the only thing that get economies out of a depression, the government is the only institution that has the power to fix their own mistakes.

So to repeat what I've said about 18 times on this board by now, here is what happened with the 2008 bubble:

A: Government pushes interest rates artificially low thus creating a ton of cheap credit.
B: Government creates housing programs which direct a great deal of this new cheap credit into housing.
C: Government regulators fail at making sure bank leverage is acceptable, that banks are liquid, etc.
D: The whole population (including the capitalists) prospers off the cheap credit, people buy things they cannot afford in 4 lifetimes.
E: Bubble bursts.

If capitalists are the alcoholics that went on binge and killed a hooker in a hotel room with a candle stick, the government paid for the booze, the hooker, the hotel room and the candle stick.

P.S The people who call what the U.S had and still have as a laissez-faire economy are the equivalent of the people who call Obama a communist.

You forgot one.

F: Everyone (especially the government) blames everyone *else* for being responsible for the whole mess.