Starving Patriarchy

[Willy Phallicus]

8 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

If you were approaching this in good faith, I wouldn't have to explain anything to you.

If you were approaching this in good faith, you would actually make an attempt to debunk what Im saying instead of just pointing out how you dont like it.  Thats what a good faith discussion is, in case you were wondering.

8 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

This isn't between me and you per se - it is you attempting to counter argue with the OP

Then why are you making it about me?  I am countering the OP because the OP is wrong.  If Patriarchy is bad then Matriarchy is bad when you're talking egalitarianism.  

Now this is the point someone would refute that with empirical evidence but the OP has no case of any kind and doesn't try to hide their stupidly obvious bias.

8 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I am just pointing out poorly presented takedown attempts.

Just saying it doesn't make it true.  You kind of have to back up what you're saying. 

Im not just telling the OP they are wrong Im showing them why they are wrong.  Big difference.

8 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Maybe you have lots of experience having mature good faith arguments - but this statement belies what appears to be the exact opposite.

Matriarchy being totally antithetical to equality and thus being stupid ain't my fault.  I'm just pointing it out.  Maybe less shooting the messenger and more critical thinking.

Men didnt just wake up one day and decide to be the dominant sex.  Nature created this dynamic and it holds true for just about every mammal on the planet.  Bitching and moaning about it ain't going to change that fact.  The notion that females are just poor innocent victims of a brutal male system is an extremely elitist stance.  Females are fully complicit in this system and its hypocrisy and that's the information everyone needs to transcend it into equilibrium but no, they just want matriarchy to take over the world because "men suck".

[Rafael Thundercat]

The concept of calling women "man haters" when they criticise and point out toxicity in mens behavior but not calling men "women haters" when they are literally k!lling, r*ping and abus!ng women on a daily basis.

[Rafael Thundercat]

11 hours ago, Willy Phallicus said:

Men didnt just wake up one day and decide to be the dominant sex.  Nature created this dynamic and it holds true for just about every mammal on the planet.  Bitching and moaning about it ain't going to change that fact.  The notion that females are just poor innocent victims of a brutal male system is an extremely elitist stance.  Females are fully complicit in this system and its hypocrisy and that's the information everyone needs to transcend it into equilibrium but no, they just want matriarchy to take over the world because "men suck"

Patriarchy doesn't exist because men are "naturally" superior to women; it exists because they aren't. You do not build a system of dominance that oppresses women because you're "better than them"; you build it because you know you aren't. You don't break women because you're whole; you break them because they're whole. The patriarchy is a symptom of men's fears, not power; it is a desperate process of possessing power.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Willy Phallicus using hypocrasy as a counter argument is a fallacy. It's an invalid counter argument. Remember, I'm not arguing this topic with you. I just claim you misrepresented the claim so you could try a cheap teardown.

You don't know. And this is, again, what I am pointing toward - you are way too certain. No room for anything new.

I would direct you to looking into some information about openness - and the power of not knowing.

[Willy Phallicus]

1 hour ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

when they are literally k!lling, r*ping and abus!ng women on a daily basis.

What men? Where? What are the numbers? Based off your proclamations of the problem the majority of women should already be raped and dead.  So why arent they?  Why are there female rapists then if its a man thing?  

1 hour ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

Patriarchy doesn't exist because men are "naturally" superior to women; it exists because they aren't. You do not build a system of dominance that oppresses women because you're "better than them"; you build it because you know you aren't. You don't break women because you're whole; you break them because they're whole. The patriarchy is a symptom of men's fears, not power; it is a desperate process of possessing power.

Why arent there female NFL players then genius?  You have a patriarchy because the dominate sex in nature is male.  You have a patriarchy because men built civilization.  Men are physically superior to women, its not up for debate.  Go look at the primate world in case you need a refresher course on how nature implements gender roles.  There are alphas, the alphas are male, the alpha runs the group and everyone goes along or gets fucked up by the alpha.

Ability = might.  

If the mighty have a respect for the concept of self determination then the weak will go unmolested.  If the mighty have no such respect then the weak will be subjugated.  The weak are always at the mercy of the strong - if the strong are merciless then the weak are simply fucked.  That's how nature works.  Now contrast that to western society where rape is a thing that can happen but its not because all men are cool with it and think it should be a thing and women are lawfully equal to men.  Most men find rape despicable and don't engage in it.  

You sound just like those female athletes who can't figure out the very practical reasons why they aren't paid as much as their male counterparts and just call it oppression so they don't have to come to grips with how inferior womens sports are to mens sports.

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

using hypocrasy as a counter argument is a fallacy. It's an invalid counter argument

What's the name of the fallacy and explain to me exactly, in detail, where and how I used the fallacy.  Otherwise you're doing that thing I already accused you of which is completely ignoring my argument to tell me my argument is bad without proving any of the shit you type. 

Pointing out the stupidly in your face hypocrisy of someone's position is a completely valid form of counter argumentation and mind you I have to tell this to someone with the audacity to talk about good faith discussions.  I'd say that's mighty hypocritical of you but apparently pointing out hypocrisy isn't a valid position.

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Remember, I'm not arguing this topic with you.

I don't need to be reminded that you don't have any argument, Ive only pointed it out like three times already.  What you have is an axe to grind and you can't even manage that with any degree of effectiveness.

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

You don't know.

Put your money where your mouth is and prove it or stop replying to me and wasting my time.

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

you are way too certain.

Yeah that can happen when you actually know and understand the facts.  My bad.

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I would direct you to looking into some information about openness - and the power of not knowing.

Im completely open to having a real discussion but people like you and the OP make that impossible.  You dont want a discussion, you want immediate validation and can't stand it when you don't get it.  

Y'know, like a typical western woman.

Edited 40 minutes ago by Willy Phallicus

[Basman]

There's actually a positive evolutionary pressure for women to be submissive since they end up having more children. All of human history is indicative of such. Periods where women are politically equal to men is historically an anomaly, only afforded by unprecedented technological development. The fact that feminists tend have the fewest children is quiet indicative. 

Like this phenomena of women freezing during rape. If you think about it, it makes more sense for women to evolve to not fight their rapist tooth and claw because they are the one's that end up reproducing. Stockholm syndrome is pure survival when a woman gets raped and kidnapped by another tribe. She ends up a loving wife and all the happier for it. Brutal efficiency based on how our biology is shaped.

It has a lot to do with the fact that we are warm blooded mammalians, where it's common for females to be smaller than males, with long gestation periods. Human nature would look a lot different if we laid eggs.

[Willy Phallicus]

A dude didn't write 50 Shades of Grey and men didn't turn it into a nearly two billion dollar franchise.  

Edited 31 minutes ago by Willy Phallicus

[Rafael Thundercat]

I will ignore the two last non-sense rants above since I dont have maturity to debate with kids. 

So I will drop this here for who interested in knowing that there are Matriarchal Societies and this Societies are not about Woman domination of men, they are simply another way of governance for humans. Lets let the chimps and gorillas in their own way of living and remember that we are another line of evolution. I think is already proved that we are somehow like apes but in another level of evolution. Humans gained capacity to organize in ways that apes cant. 

Here is the example for study.

There are stories that change the way we understand the world. 
Not because they are new, but because they show us that what we today consider "normal" is not the only way to organize society.
In the Haudenosaunee Confederacy (North America), the clan mothers embody another way of organizing society. A society where imposition or domination over others is not necessary for "things to work." Nor is the accumulation of resources and capital a priority... it is a society where responsibility, balance and care for life are prioritized. 
Here the Clan Mothers nominated leaders, could remove them from power, and sustained political legitimacy. Belonging, land and community life were organized through the maternal line. 🩸
And this was not just a political structure. It was also expressed in daily life: houses belonged to women, men joined the maternal clan and, if a relationship ended, it was he who had to return to his maternal home. Life was not fragmented between the political, the economic or the spiritual: everything formed part of the same fabric. 

This type of organization was documented in the 19th century by Lewis Henry Morgan and Ely S. Parker, though it was also questioned and distorted at the time, partly because it deeply challenged dominant ideas about power and the place of women in society. 

The work of Barbara Alice Mann allows us to return to these stories from a different place, showing that maternal authority in Haudenosaunee society was not an exception, but part of a balanced system centered on life. 

Now let me search for relevant books, references and videos.
Books
Barbara Alice Mann (the author referenced in the post):
Iroquoian Women: The Gantowisas (2000) — Peter Lang Publishing. The definitive work on Haudenosaunee matriarchy, now considered a classic.

Daughters of Mother Earth: The Wisdom of Native American Women (ed.) — explores women's roles pre-colonization.

Make a Beautiful Way: The Wisdom of Native American Women — four essays from Indigenous women on matriarchy and colonialism.

Encyclopedia of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois Confederacy) (2000), co-authored with Bruce E. Johansen — Greenwood Publishing.

Lewis Henry Morgan (also cited in the post):
League of the Iroquois (1851) — the first systematic 19th-century documentation of Haudenosaunee society.

Sally Roesch Wagner:
Sisters in Spirit: Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Influence on Early American Feminists (2001) — traces how Iroquois matriarchy directly influenced the suffragist movement.

Videos
Haudenosaunee | Women and Governance (YouTube):

What Is The Role Of Clan Mothers In The Haudenosaunee Confederacy? (YouTube): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5ncZQxJOf0

Clan Mother: Healing the Community — The Ways (YouTube):

Without a Whisper — short documentary on Clan Mothers and the suffrage movement (PBS): https://www.pbs.org/video/without-a-whisper-wnpj8u/

Inside the Vision for Clan Mothers Healing Village (PBS Native America): https://www.pbs.org/video/clan-mother-icf9k6/

🌐 Official Sources
Haudenosaunee Confederacy official site: https://www.haudenosauneeconfederacy.com/clan-system/

Onondaga Nation on Clan Mothers: https://www.onondaganation.org/government/clan-mothers/

Now kids, bring some substance to sustain all your blable. 

[Willy Phallicus]

None of what youre linking here matters because its gonna be what its gonna be - and its likely not going to be clan mother primitive.

Let me put it another way: You have just as much power over the future as you do the present.  Saving the world is a tall order.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Willy Phallicus Hahaha I don't have an axe to grind

I'm trying to steer the argument to point out blind spots and fallacy (pointing out hypocrisy is a fallacious argument - you wrote the words, but don't seem to be able to understand what you wrote)  - but I am not going to argue a case, because I know that won't work for you - you are, as I said, too full of certainty. You cannot fill a cup that is already full.

These topics tend to devolve into straight bias. I am pointing toward areas that you need to inspect.

And I am intelligent enough to know that insight is the only way for someone like yourself to grasp a counter point.

You should be able to see both sides of a perspective and not suffer so much cognitive bias.

Edited 4 minutes ago by Natasha Tori Maru