Would a matriarchal society be more better and more peaceful than a patriarchal society?
26-30, F
Many feminists say so, but overall I don't think so.
I think women are just as fallible as men and humanity is only the sum of its parts.
There are examples of where women in charge have proved more successful. For instance, the women-only-run-bank in Greenland survived the GST with no financial problems because it had never lent money it didn't have. It acted as though there had never been any deregulation and ensured that all it's loans were backed by its own material assets.
According to the Korn Ferry results, women were 86% more likely than men to be seen as consistently demonstrating emotional self-awareness as a competency, or more accurately, 18.4% of women compared to just 9.9% of men. (https://theglasshammer.com/2019/05/emotional-intelligence-part-2)
The article goes on to observe, "Women were 45% more likely than men to be seen as demonstrating empathy consistently.
Women also outperformed men at 'coaching & mentoring, influence, inspirational leadership, conflict management, organizational awareness, adaptability, teamwork and achievement orientation.' The most narrow margin was 'positive outlook' (9% more likely), and the only gender neutral competency was “emotional self-control.
"When it comes to excelling at what we value, these findings complement research that shows that men are more likely to undervalue the relationship interaction with customers and clients, which women will tend to emphasize as important."
This suggests that if women were given a larger role in leadership, we might indeed see huge improvements in society.
But in my view, there's a catch.
People (of either sex or gender) who stand for high roles in leadership in politics, public service, social services, businesses and justice are more likely to be interested in power. This means they have a much higher chance of being narcissists who are good at acting and playing public roles but who have little or zero empathy. Of course there are exceptions, and not all are equally bad, not by a long shot.
Candidates with genuinely high IQ and EI (emotional intelligence) tend to be rare, especially in politics. It's more likely that what they display is public relations doublespeak - ie some degree of deception.
If a woman wanted to run for POTUS or prime minister on grounds of her EI, she'd have to consistently demonstrate it from her earliest years (around 4 years old when it first shows) and throughout her career. If she could achieve that, I think many would vote for her.
I think women are just as fallible as men and humanity is only the sum of its parts.
There are examples of where women in charge have proved more successful. For instance, the women-only-run-bank in Greenland survived the GST with no financial problems because it had never lent money it didn't have. It acted as though there had never been any deregulation and ensured that all it's loans were backed by its own material assets.
According to the Korn Ferry results, women were 86% more likely than men to be seen as consistently demonstrating emotional self-awareness as a competency, or more accurately, 18.4% of women compared to just 9.9% of men. (https://theglasshammer.com/2019/05/emotional-intelligence-part-2)
The article goes on to observe, "Women were 45% more likely than men to be seen as demonstrating empathy consistently.
Women also outperformed men at 'coaching & mentoring, influence, inspirational leadership, conflict management, organizational awareness, adaptability, teamwork and achievement orientation.' The most narrow margin was 'positive outlook' (9% more likely), and the only gender neutral competency was “emotional self-control.
"When it comes to excelling at what we value, these findings complement research that shows that men are more likely to undervalue the relationship interaction with customers and clients, which women will tend to emphasize as important."
This suggests that if women were given a larger role in leadership, we might indeed see huge improvements in society.
But in my view, there's a catch.
People (of either sex or gender) who stand for high roles in leadership in politics, public service, social services, businesses and justice are more likely to be interested in power. This means they have a much higher chance of being narcissists who are good at acting and playing public roles but who have little or zero empathy. Of course there are exceptions, and not all are equally bad, not by a long shot.
Candidates with genuinely high IQ and EI (emotional intelligence) tend to be rare, especially in politics. It's more likely that what they display is public relations doublespeak - ie some degree of deception.
If a woman wanted to run for POTUS or prime minister on grounds of her EI, she'd have to consistently demonstrate it from her earliest years (around 4 years old when it first shows) and throughout her career. If she could achieve that, I think many would vote for her.
View 5 more replies »
SW-User
@subhubby 🤢
CrazyMusicLover · 31-35
Spend some time in a female prison and go from there. Aggressive dominant women aren't any win for those who are on a pacifist side. The leaders of each group would eventually try to push you to do what benefits them or what they believe is right. I think there's no guarantee individualists would fare better in a matriarchal society.
CrazyMusicLover · 31-35
@EarthlingWise Yes but I assume it would be the most dominant and most aggressive individuals who would be on top and take leading positions.
@CrazyMusicLover I don't know. Prisons are a special place. Matrilineal societies, whether among humans or animals tend to be more pacifist.
SnailTeeth · 36-40, M
Society was envisioned for the betterment and convenience of all humanity.
Patriarchal society is a false narrative that wilfully ignores the historical contributions of women to society.
It's not uncommon for either sex to not appreciate the society we've been handed, but to solely put the blame on either sex implies there was no culpability on behalf of the opposite. We're all responsible for this mess.
Russia is historically known for their female rulers, and look at their current state.
In a vacuum, arguments can be made to demonise either sex.
I believe in equity, equality is not the right term. Equity puts everyone on an equal playing field.
Patriarchal society is a false narrative that wilfully ignores the historical contributions of women to society.
It's not uncommon for either sex to not appreciate the society we've been handed, but to solely put the blame on either sex implies there was no culpability on behalf of the opposite. We're all responsible for this mess.
Russia is historically known for their female rulers, and look at their current state.
In a vacuum, arguments can be made to demonise either sex.
I believe in equity, equality is not the right term. Equity puts everyone on an equal playing field.
Nevaeh0081 · 36-40, F
@Nevaeh0081 This idea is very offensive to so many but they're perfectly okay with a patriarchy.
originnone · 61-69, M
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Corporalcolleague · 61-69, M
@HairbrushDiva messaged you
HairbrushDiva · 31-35, F
@Corporalcolleague Reply sent.
PoetryNEmotion · F
HairbrushDiva · 31-35, F
WolfGirlwh0r3 · 36-40, T
WolfGirlwh0r3 · 36-40, T
@FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays No i was semi mistaken the film i was thinking of was the woman king, about an all woman warrior tribe in Africa known as the Agojie
@WolfGirlwh0r3 I thought you meant Eleanor of Acquitaine.
WolfGirlwh0r3 · 36-40, T
@FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays Nope i did not mean Eleanor of Acqufine
JimboSaturn · 56-60, M
HairbrushDiva · 31-35, F
DunningKruger · 61-69, M
yes, but only in dealing with crude material energy and the rational functioning of society at a primitive level
RedBaron · M
More better is redundant and not an actual expression.
Teirdalin · 31-35
Probably would be just as it is now I assume.
Lovesungoddess · 22-25, F
Probably not, Egalitarianism is better.
Lovesungoddess · 22-25, F
Possibly, there will be less corruption
GuyWithOpinions · 31-35, M
I dont think that really matters.
Elessar · 26-30, M
Absolutely not.
Nick1 · 61-69, M
Have you heard of “ cat fight” ????? 😁
TheMountainMan · 26-30, M
Who could say?
Scribbles · 36-40, F
Good question. I think everyone regardless of gender is as fallible as the next.
One thing that always strikes me as interesting is when I read "God Emperor of Dune" and he says he made his army all women because they were not as likely to rape in war. And that thought has stuck with me. What if he's right? Maybe men should not be soldiers. Women should be.
One thing that always strikes me as interesting is when I read "God Emperor of Dune" and he says he made his army all women because they were not as likely to rape in war. And that thought has stuck with me. What if he's right? Maybe men should not be soldiers. Women should be.
HeidiA · 41-45, F
Probably not
MartinTheFirst · 26-30, M
Entwistle · 56-60, M
No.
bijouxbroussard · F
It depends, it really does. I’ve worked in offices with a majority of women that were run like fiefdoms. However, in an overall patriarchal society (where the ultimate control is by men), even women managers are still currying favor from male upper management. In a truly matriarchal society the dynamics might be completely different.
MartinTheFirst · 26-30, M
SW-User
It's not worth contemplating because it would absolutely never happen. Men would never allow it. Women would be killed off before that ever happened!