Patriarchal history and the much needed death of Mormonism and all Abrahamic religions

[deacon blues]

I believe the family unit where co-equal parents raise the children is the most likely to be successful, but that doesn't mean a patriarchy. As I grew up in a clearly patriarchal family, I slowly learned that the foundational wisdom that held our family together came more from my mother. She was the gracious, understanding, forgiving one, where my father was the strict, obedience-demanding one. Each of us children seemed to forge a different path that led to maturity and independence, and none of the relationships were ideal. But we all survived, baggage and neurosis included. From my 67 year old perspective it is fascinating to watch our kid's families negotiate that common ground.

[Reuben]

Women in charge: good, because... ?

Men in charge: bad, because they dominate and enslave women

I don't understand this perspective at all. It seems to assume women are incapable of dominating and enslaving men, or oppressing them in some way. Is that true? Do we know how egalitarian these matriarchal societies were? Do we know much about them at all?

I really don't get this. I would like someone to enlighten me - with an argument that doesn't hinge on men = bad, women = good, because I don't buy that for a millisecond.

Hmmm, I wonder why we don't know about them?

Men don't need to be all fragile to accept that men have dominated and continue to dominate the power structures of the world. It's right in front of our faces. This straw man of women "enslaving", "oppressing", and "dominating" men just sounds silly. Nobody is arguing that or has ever argued that. Let's put our big boy underwear on and look at reality and create a better world.

You seem to be saying that women can't enslave, oppress, or dominate men. You seem to think it's so silly that I can't possibly be saying that it's possible. Therefore I must be making an argument in bad faith.

I'm not. As much as I can, I like to keep all the possibilities in mind. Apparently, some of those possibilities are silly to you. Fine.

I asked for explanations. I got some. It turns out "matriarchal" and "patriarchal" don't mean the same thing but with different gender, which is hella confusing. Also fine.

"Fragile." "Big boy underwear." Usually I enjoy your posts, and I often agree with your perspective. But this post is presumptive, accusatory, and condescending. I won't engage further.

[alas]

Women in charge: good, because... ?

Men in charge: bad, because they dominate and enslave women

I don't understand this perspective at all. It seems to assume women are incapable of dominating and enslaving men, or oppressing them in some way. Is that true? Do we know how egalitarian these matriarchal societies were? Do we know much about them at all?

I really don't get this. I would like someone to enlighten me - with an argument that doesn't hinge on men = bad, women = good, because I don't buy that for a millisecond.

Hmmm, I wonder why we don't know about them?

Men don't need to be all fragile to accept that men have dominated and continue to dominate the power structures of the world. It's right in front of our faces. This straw man of women "enslaving", "oppressing", and "dominating" men just sounds silly. Nobody is arguing that or has ever argued that. Let's put our big boy underwear on and look at reality and create a better world.

You seem to be saying that women can't enslave, oppress, or dominate men. You seem to think it's so silly that I can't possibly be saying that it's possible. Therefore I must be making an argument in bad faith.

I'm not. As much as I can, I like to keep all the possibilities in mind. Apparently, some of those possibilities are silly to you. Fine.

I asked for explanations. I got some. It turns out "matriarchal" and "patriarchal" don't mean the same thing but with different gender, which is hella confusing. Also fine.

"Fragile." "Big boy underwear." Usually I enjoy your posts, and I often agree with your perspective. But this post is presumptive, accusatory, and condescending. I won't engage further.

Women don’t dominate men for a variety of reasons, one, on average men are physically stronger, hard to boss around someone who is stronger. Another is psychological in the fact that women nurse and are primary care takers of infants. Means males first love interest is his mother who is different than he is. In order to “be a man” he has to separate and “other” the first person he loved, so men “other” women, while women bond to someone like them, and then loving their father is extra another person to love, instead of different and “other”. So, men see women as “not like me” while females see men as “not like mama”. Very Freudian, but then it is psychology. Then there is testosterone, which encourages men to be aggressive to fight for mates. My mother joked that men suffer from testosterone poisoning, but very real difference psychologically with men needing to dominate and women being more about networking.

So, your hypothetical is way out in left field crazy, because women are not men and women have no need to control and dominate men, and a matriarchal society in which women dominate men and abuse and control men is psychologically, well, it is projecting your own thinking onto women. There has never been a society in which women dominate men. Women give birth to men, and if you even half understand a mother’s bond with her baby, then you would see that women are never going to “other” men and want to dominate them the way men have done to women.

That may sound “men hating” to you, but you are not getting it. There has never been a society that the women ruled over men because women are not men. Women have different vices. Women don’t dominate and control and desire to “rule over” like men do because they are not men. Women have different vices.

It isn’t a matter of “it is a possibility” because if it WAS a possibility, then it would have happened. Psychologically, women are not into “ruling over” and hierarchy like men are, as a general rule. Sure, there are women who do, but then there are men who are gay and transgender too, but as a general rule, it is not women’s nature to want to control men like property or pets. Women see the humanity of men in ways that men do NOT see the humanity of women.

So, yeah, stop being so fragile and put on your big boy panties. Men have ruled over, controlled and abused women in ways most women would NEVER do to men. But that isn’t saying men = bad, women = good. And, well, if it is, then damn it, the men deserve it. When they behave badly, why can’t we call them on it. But really, it is saying that men have their faults and women have different faults. If a woman is the rare bird who does want to dominate and control men, she becomes a dominatrix and gets rich as a hooker. But the men go out and rape and murder. So, yeah, there is a little women = good, men = bad, but that is the world we live in, so get over yourself. Do women get angry, yup, we sure do when men use fear of being dominated as a damned excuse to dominate and control women. So, just stop and go look in the mirror. Stop dominating women long enough that you find out if they take advantage of it and start dominating you. Stop fearing that women are going to do to you what you have been doing to them, trust that if you stop beating up on women that they might actually like you better. One gender does not need to “be in control”. You control you and let them control themselves. The fear that men have is used as an excuse to keep controlling women. Men teach it to each other, as justification for being in control. “If we don’t rule over the women, they will rule over us.” Bullshit!

Whites do the same thing to justify racist attitudes.

There, you got me pissed. I tried to explain nicely, but you say it doesn’t make sense. So, I explain it like you are using your fear to abuse women.

[stealthbishop]

Women in charge: good, because... ?

Men in charge: bad, because they dominate and enslave women

I don't understand this perspective at all. It seems to assume women are incapable of dominating and enslaving men, or oppressing them in some way. Is that true? Do we know how egalitarian these matriarchal societies were? Do we know much about them at all?

I really don't get this. I would like someone to enlighten me - with an argument that doesn't hinge on men = bad, women = good, because I don't buy that for a millisecond.

Hmmm, I wonder why we don't know about them?

Men don't need to be all fragile to accept that men have dominated and continue to dominate the power structures of the world. It's right in front of our faces. This straw man of women "enslaving", "oppressing", and "dominating" men just sounds silly. Nobody is arguing that or has ever argued that. Let's put our big boy underwear on and look at reality and create a better world.

You seem to be saying that women can't enslave, oppress, or dominate men. You seem to think it's so silly that I can't possibly be saying that it's possible. Therefore I must be making an argument in bad faith.

I'm not. As much as I can, I like to keep all the possibilities in mind. Apparently, some of those possibilities are silly to you. Fine.

I asked for explanations. I got some. It turns out "matriarchal" and "patriarchal" don't mean the same thing but with different gender, which is hella confusing. Also fine.

"Fragile." "Big boy underwear." Usually I enjoy your posts, and I often agree with your perspective. But this post is presumptive, accusatory, and condescending. I won't engage further.

I do stand on the idea that it is silly especially when there are no historical or current examples of this.

I don't think you made the argument in bad faith. I think you were sincere probably. But, yes, some possibilities are silly. Not all arguments or positions have moral equivalency or any sort of equivalency or equivalent weight.

As far as the fragile and big boy underwear--that was a "we" statement and I meant it as a "we" statement. Privilege is a blind spot. Those comments were directed at me and other men. Doesn't mean we are bad people or try to hurt others but we do need to do some significant work to call out ourselves and each other over privilege and our blind spots when it comes to power differentials of history and now. I continue to have to do work in this area myself.

I hope you will continue to engage.

[Zeezrom]

Enjoy the education and viewpoints on this thread. Totally understand the anger and frustration Alas feels. As men we do have a complete blind spot to our own privilege. One thing I personally found eye opening as I said in my OP is that goddess worshipping preceded god worshipping. It threw my thinking upside down and showed me one of the blind spots I grew up with. Namely as men it seems perfectly normal to us that the ruler of the universe would obviously share our gender.

[Zeezrom]

Hmmm, I wonder why we don't know about them?

Men don't need to be all fragile to accept that men have dominated and continue to dominate the power structures of the world. It's right in front of our faces. This straw man of women "enslaving", "oppressing", and "dominating" men just sounds silly. Nobody is arguing that or has ever argued that. Let's put our big boy underwear on and look at reality and create a better world.

You seem to be saying that women can't enslave, oppress, or dominate men. You seem to think it's so silly that I can't possibly be saying that it's possible. Therefore I must be making an argument in bad faith.

I'm not. As much as I can, I like to keep all the possibilities in mind. Apparently, some of those possibilities are silly to you. Fine.

I asked for explanations. I got some. It turns out "matriarchal" and "patriarchal" don't mean the same thing but with different gender, which is hella confusing. Also fine.

"Fragile." "Big boy underwear." Usually I enjoy your posts, and I often agree with your perspective. But this post is presumptive, accusatory, and condescending. I won't engage further.

Women don’t dominate men for a variety of reasons, one, on average men are physically stronger, hard to boss around someone who is stronger. Another is psychological in the fact that women nurse and are primary care takers of infants. Means males first love interest is his mother who is different than he is. In order to “be a man” he has to separate and “other” the first person he loved, so men “other” women, while women bond to someone like them, and then loving their father is extra another person to love, instead of different and “other”. So, men see women as “not like me” while females see men as “not like mama”. Very Freudian, but then it is psychology. Then there is testosterone, which encourages men to be aggressive to fight for mates. My mother joked that men suffer from testosterone poisoning, but very real difference psychologically with men needing to dominate and women being more about networking.

So, your hypothetical is way out in left field crazy, because women are not men and women have no need to control and dominate men, and a matriarchal society in which women dominate men and abuse and control men is psychologically, well, it is projecting your own thinking onto women. There has never been a society in which women dominate men. Women give birth to men, and if you even half understand a mother’s bond with her baby, then you would see that women are never going to “other” men and want to dominate them the way men have done to women.

That may sound “men hating” to you, but you are not getting it. There has never been a society that the women ruled over men because women are not men. Women have different vices. Women don’t dominate and control and desire to “rule over” like men do because they are not men. Women have different vices.

It isn’t a matter of “it is a possibility” because if it WAS a possibility, then it would have happened. Psychologically, women are not into “ruling over” and hierarchy like men are, as a general rule. Sure, there are women who do, but then there are men who are gay and transgender too, but as a general rule, it is not women’s nature to want to control men like property or pets. Women see the humanity of men in ways that men do NOT see the humanity of women.

So, yeah, stop being so fragile and put on your big boy panties. Men have ruled over, controlled and abused women in ways most women would NEVER do to men. But that isn’t saying men = bad, women = good. And, well, if it is, then damn it, the men deserve it. When they behave badly, why can’t we call them on it. But really, it is saying that men have their faults and women have different faults. If a woman is the rare bird who does want to dominate and control men, she becomes a dominatrix and gets rich as a hooker. But the men go out and rape and murder. So, yeah, there is a little women = good, men = bad, but that is the world we live in, so get over yourself. Do women get angry, yup, we sure do when men use fear of being dominated as a damned excuse to dominate and control women. So, just stop and go look in the mirror. Stop dominating women long enough that you find out if they take advantage of it and start dominating you. Stop fearing that women are going to do to you what you have been doing to them, trust that if you stop beating up on women that they might actually like you better. One gender does not need to “be in control”. You control you and let them control themselves. The fear that men have is used as an excuse to keep controlling women. Men teach it to each other, as justification for being in control. “If we don’t rule over the women, they will rule over us.” Bullshit!

Whites do the same thing to justify racist attitudes.

There, you got me pissed. I tried to explain nicely, but you say it doesn’t make sense. So, I explain it like you are using your fear to abuse women.

You make some very good points. Perhaps that’s why Wicca/Paganism appeals to me because it tends to be very female centered in its worship and most of the practitioners and authors tend to be women. It seems to result in a much less rigid and dictatorial belief system than Mormonism. There’s not the same focus on authority or an appeal to authority the way many left-brained male spiritual leaders have.

[Reuben]

Alas and stealth, STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT ME.

Goddamn it, you don't know what's in my heart and mind, but you keep pretending you do. Stop stereotyping me. Stop. Stop. STOP.

I was going to make some more arguments in my defense, but anything I say will reinforce in your minds that I'm fragile and blind to the privilege of my gender, because I started out SOUNDING LIKE THE ENEMY to you. So you attacked. I defended. You attacked again.

STOP.

STOP.

STOP.

STOP.

There's no need for your tough love bullshit. I'm already convinced of the need for reform, introspection, and hard decisions to hand over some privilege. I'm spearheading part of the effort in my own goddamn company, by implementing recommendations from psychology research that we hope will help equalize our interviewing for technical positions.

Good god. You know what the worst part is? You've framed my attitude as fragile, which is a SELF-REINFORCING STEREOTYPE. It's exactly like calling a woman bitchy. She can't defend herself against that, because if she does, it proves she's bitchy. Well GUESS WHAT, GUYS?? The same goddamn thing happens when you call someone fragile. They can't defend against that, because if they do, it just proves they're fragile to you.

The only thing we can do is shut up and submit, to erase the stain of fragility.

I won't submit. I had enough of that bullsh*t from the church, when people said I lost the spirit. Didn't you? You've fallen into the same trap, and you think it's perfectly fine because YOU'RE THE GOOD GUYS.

I'm so f*** done with both of you.

I hate humanity. Why are we like this?

[alas]

We both got triggered. Sorry for reacting. I was trying to explain to someone who I felt like refused to listen. Maybe we both need to learn to listen better.