Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Battle of the Sexists [View all]
Every so often, there are a cluster of threads on the Democratic Underground that highlight the tensions between the sexes in our society. In the past 72 hours, General Discussion has had quite a few of these, ranging from serious attempts to discuss important aspects of the current culture, to rather shallow efforts to insult the "opposition." Even among the more sincere efforts at rational conversation, we have seen emotions replace reason.
For sake of conversation, if we want to engage in meaningful discussions on this topic, I would suggest we take note of one of the rules that applies to our legal system. This alone will not insure a productive group didscussion, but it is likely a good starting point. In court, most witnesses are not allowed to testify as to their "opinion" ......with the exception being those with the proper background to allow them to be considered an "expert." The simple reason for this is that an actual opinion requires one to have background information, that allows them to examine the facts of the case, and then provide their interpretation.
Without that background knowledge, a person cannot actually have an "opinion," in the legal sense, but rather, they have a bias. In other words, they reach a conclusion that does not have va factual foundation. Hence, we hear people say, "I feel that ....," as opposed to, "I think that ..." It is not a coincidence that some topics -- including religion and the battle of the sexes -- tend to involves feelings, or passions, as opposed to a logical foundation in fact.
Hence, most of the DU:GD discussions on patriarchal versus matriarchal societies have the potential to be meaningful, but are frequently derailed by the misinformation that produces bias. A common example of this involves claims regarding the frequency of "war" among both patriarchal and matriarchal societies. In fact, "war" and "warfare" are specific terms, that can accurately be applied to cultures that have reached a specific level of social order. In the history of human experience on earth, only a tiny minority of nations have had that ability; far more have been at the level that allows for violence to be limited to feuding and battles. Thus, one cannot actually have an opinion on "warfare" in matriarchal societies; at very best, one can speculate on the possibilities.
Religion, as a social construct, has long played a significant role in the levels of both internal and external violence in human culture. Hence, there is value to be found in examining the differences between patriarchal and matriarchal religious belief systems. This is true, even within the cluster of religious belief systems known as "Christianity." It is fascinating to examine the influences of "male versus female" dynamics found within Christianity, from its early days up until the present. Indeed, this is an outstanding example of when a person's feelings are, at very least, as important as their intellect and educational background: for in the most literal sense, it sheds light upon that individual's level of being. And that, far more than a diploma or sex organ, defines one's potential for violence -- morganized or disorganized.
Both patriarchal and matriarchal concepts have to do with general characteristics found in the sexes. They can be best understood -- hence, applied -- when we recognize that human potential is not rigid. For example, in our current culture, there are good and bad fathers, and good and bad mothers. More, even among the very best fathers and mothers, individuals make mistakes -- for parenting is difficult, and we can only attempt to do our best.
Now, let's consider one of the basic differences found between "mothers" and "fathers," and then apply it to a societial potential. Mothers tend to love all of their children the same; they may recognize that one has a unique skill, or another a specific weakness, but each one is of value, with the same right to love and care as his/her siblings. Fathers, on the other hand, tend to have a rating system, in which that child that best meets his highest expectations is his favorite. (A "good" father will favor the child most like himself, while a bad father dislikes the child who most reminds him of himself.)
Thus, the good potential found in matriarchal societies is a sense of affirmation of life, and equality among the group that promotes individuality. The good potential of patriarchal society is reason, discipline, conscience, and individualism.
The negative aspects of matriarchal society include being bound to nature, to blood and soil, and thus blocked from developing the individuality that results from reasoning. The negatives associated with patriarchal society include hierachy, oppression, inequality, exploitation, and submission. (For the best detailed analysis, see Ericch Fromm's classic, "The Sane Society."
Thus, in matriarchal societies, while "warfare" in the literal sense has never been found, the dynamic known as "blood feuds" is not uncommon. And in our current society, domestic violence is not exclusive to men. Even among highly trained professionals, there are flaws in perception, perpetuated by things such as the Duluth Model, which is easily exposed as unable to address much of the domestic violence spectrum. Yet, this in no way invalidates the unacceptable reality of male violence in our culture.
The sad truth is that we are an extremely violent nation. That violence is found in families, in churches, schools, and in Washington, DC. And I say that, without even beginning to touch upon the genius of Gandhi's saying that "poverty is the worst form of violence."
The truth is that we we do not have a prayer of reducing that level of violence in any meaningful way when we allow our energies to become trapped in a male versus female construct. There will, of course, always be some degree of tension between the sexes. That isn't a bad thing, in and of itself. But it surely can be, as we see in our society today -- even on this internet site. No one benefits from the combination of ignorance and hatred that we see.
We can keep going down that path, or we can change directions. That changing of directions begins at the individual level.
Peace,
H2O Man
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
236 replies, 43937 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (45)
ReplyReply to this post
236 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Totally agree. There are no existing matriarchies. Pre-historic matriarchies are spoken of as myth.
ancianita
Dec 2013
#32
Oh I disagree with somewhere between 80%-95% of the ideas as well. The thing is the OP had no
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#34
Except the way to foster healthy dialogue isn't to totally misrepresent one side of an argument
Spider Jerusalem
Dec 2013
#53
I invite you to point out anything I said that constitutes an attack, please.
Spider Jerusalem
Dec 2013
#58
I see an opinion, politely and intelligently presented by the OP. Then I see what amount to attacks
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#190
Except I'm talking specifically about myself and my responses on this thread.
Spider Jerusalem
Dec 2013
#210
Since it was a response to one of my posts, pretty quickly, since you asked.
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#226
No, a majority doesn't think that, they think that those who tend to dominate these discussions
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#186
It wasn't missed. It wasn't irrelevant to your premise and not really what feminists want.
boston bean
Dec 2013
#101
wouldnt be a concern with some voices in diversity. the only time they participate in womens issues
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#128
I am not surprised at all about the reaction of some in this thread. They believe only they are
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#179
or maybe we simply have a differing opinion than you, saw a problem with the OP and discussed it.
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#181
Thanks for noticing. It is so disgusting that simply noticing the way this shit plays out
redqueen
Dec 2013
#66
For me, it all began with the changeover to DU3 -- the new transparency & the ability to post
pacalo
Dec 2013
#75
Personally, I don't think that this quite gets to the heart of the issue.
lumberjack_jeff
Dec 2013
#84
That you, or anyone, feels they are being "continually bludgeoned" over a couple
JTFrog
Dec 2013
#85
The effort some go to in order to push an illusion of false balance is unreal. nt
redqueen
Dec 2013
#43
If you are trying to tell people that they can't use common life experience in discussion
boston bean
Dec 2013
#46
If you don't agree with me, obviously I am not speaking for you. I speak for myself
boston bean
Dec 2013
#98
where did anyone say everyone. no one said everyone. never said everyone. the only saying everyone
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#107
why do you not address making the statement we say EVERYONE. i would think you were relieved to know
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#121
yes. i am. and still you did not address the point in like your third post, accusing feminists of
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#131
I've been quite active all over this thread. See those postings. Should add plenty. nt
boston bean
Dec 2013
#105
discussion board? dont flatter yourself, i do not remember any issue with you period, let alone
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#125
If I believed for a moment that your post's content wasn't utterly disingenuous
Matariki
Dec 2013
#115
Your idea of equality clearly requires special treatment for women over men.
TroglodyteScholar
Dec 2013
#120
Beautiful post, thank you. Maybe you might make it an OP. I feel exactly as you described
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#182
"Humanarchy" / humanism is the 'I don't see color' of discussions of sexism and misogyny.
redqueen
Dec 2013
#187
Isn't misogyny at its core a failure/refusal to recognize women as fully human?
scarletwoman
Dec 2013
#215
What hogwash, did you even read the OP or just scan it looking for something to complain about?
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#188
Lol, a 'cohort'? Since I only speak for myself I'm wondering who my imaginary cohorts are?
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#225
So what I'm getting, having skimmed those linked threads, is that if a woman has an opinion
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#235
You were doing ok until you got to this paragraph, which is way too much stereotyping for me to be
uppityperson
Dec 2013
#227