Does Evidence Support Or Preclude A Woman-Led Society?

[charles brough]

The concept of a major woman-led society in prehistory is contoversial. Anthropologist M. Gimbutas popularized the concept but the anthropologist consensus seems to be that there has never been a woman-run society.

 

 

The pro-woman-run sociey evidence is the following:

 

(1) Ancient mythology gives evidence that a Mother Goddess worshipping society did exist

 

(2) Agriculture logically sprang from the female as women did the gathering in hunting/gathering societies.

 

(3) Hundreds of prehistoric mother goddess-like figurines have been found.

 

(4) Ancient Crete and the Indus valley societies were both matrineal

 

 

 

Against the mother goddess era thesis are the following:

 

(1) In the known history of mankind, there is no written record of a woman-ruled society

 

(2) Agriculture had to also involve animal husbandry and men were the most experienced with animals

 

(3) There is ample evidence of weapons and war in pre history.

 

(4) Agriculture flourished later in many male-run societies.

 

 

ANYONE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON WHICH RULED PREHISTORY?

[Turtle]

all caps is considered shouting & rude. anyway, you once again make statements as if they are fact and give no sources. such as "Agriculture logically sprang from the female as women did the gathering in hunting/gathering societies." were you there to see the women? if not, where do you get your information? just the facts mam...

 

are you really interested in learning something by this thread, or is this another promotion of your ideas and book? :huh:

 

anyway, i gave you the benefit of the doubt & hunted you up some folks who have gathered together to give evidence for "women-led" societies, as well as a link to an early researcher of the topic.

 

Second World Congress on Matriarchal Studies 2005

Using the term "Matriarchal Studies" implies understanding matriarchal societies' organization as not simply the reversal of the patriarchal form of society, but as a system with its own rules. This latter view has gained credence in the German-speaking countries, but less so in the Anglo-American countries. This situation is partly due to the incorrect translation of *Bochofen's Greek term "gynaikokratie", or "rule by women", a term which has been confused with the term "matriarchy". "Rule by women" has never existed in the patriarchal sense of "rule", but matriarchies have existed, in various forms, over very long periods of history.

 

Not all scholars gathered here call this form of society by the same name; it is variously referred to as "matrifocal, matristic, matricentric, or gylanic" society. However, they do agree to the same concept: a form of society which does not have patriarchal patterns and demonstrates a high degree of equilibrium -a society in balance. ...

*sidebar| Johann Jakob Bachofen

Johann Jakob Bachofen (1815 – 1887) was a Swiss antiquarian, jurist and anthropologist, professor for Roman law at the University of Basel from 1841 to 1845.

 

Bachofen is most often connected with his theories surrounding prehistoric matriarchy, or Mutterrecht, the title of his seminal 1861 book Mother Right: an investigation of the religious and juridical character of matriarchy in the Ancient World. Bachofen assembled documentation demonstrating that motherhood is the source of human society, religion, morality, and decorum. He postulated an archaic "mother-right" within the context of a primeval Matriarchal religion or Urreligion.

 

Bachofen became an important precursor of 20th century theories of matriarchy, such as the Old European culture postulated by Marija Gimbutas from the 1950s, and the field of feminist theology and "Matriarchal Studies" in 1970s feminism. ...

[CraigD]

What sources support your claims, Charles? Recall that you’ve been admonished to support your claims with links and references, as is requires of all hypography members.

 

Without a more complete definition of “woman-led” or “woman-ruled society”, I’m unsure what you’re describing, but as I understand the concept of a leader, this claim

(1) In the known history of mankind, there is no written record of a woman-ruled society

appears obviously wrong, because many nations in the historic era have had women in their highest government offices. Famous examples include Cleopatra, who ruled Egypt under several titles from 51 to 30 BC, and Margaret Thatcher, prime minister of the UK from 1979 to 1990. This list of female rules and titleholders contains, by my count, 750 others.

[charles brough]

What sources support your claims, Charles? Recall that you’ve been admonished to support your claims with links and references, as is requires of all hypography members.

 

Without a more complete definition of “woman-led” or “woman-ruled society”, I’m unsure what you’re describing, but as I understand the concept of a leader, this claim

 

appears obviously wrong, because many nations in the historic era have had women in their highest government offices. Famous examples include Cleopatra, who ruled Egypt under several titles from 51 to 30 BC, and Margaret Thatcher, prime minister of the UK from 1979 to 1990. This list of female rules and titleholders contains, by my count, 750 others.

I understand hnw how my statement could be easily misunderstood. Do you really think it is necessary to cite sources for the statement that the Civilization of Ancient Egypt was any different from the patriarchal-monogamous social/political system that dominated the Mesopotamian civilization and every one since, including in the New World? The word "society" really has no meaning unless it is defined in terms of the mainstream ideological system that binds the people into it. Otherwise, it means just any group larger than on individual. No mainstream society in history has been ruled by women. All historical mainstream societies have been male dominated.

 

As with all social generalizations, there are what might appear to be exceptions. In this case, late in the life cycle of a civilization, women do rarely and temporarily gain some authority. (There are good reasons for this, but that is another subject.) The example of Cleopatra is good one. By that time the Roman Emperors set her up to rule the polytheistic religion of Egypt was swiftly being replaced by Christianity. And wasn't she part of the Potelimic or Greek Hellenist secular belief system that helped glue together the Roman Empire? All such woman rulers exercize their authority only by adhereing to only male set rules, limitations and customs.

 

In a matriarchal society, female public opinion would dominate and form a different type of society. I studied some of the few and small surviving matriarchal-type societies of India. I also studied first hand the society and long-houses of the Minangyabau of Sumatra. In them, each high status women owned her own bedroom in their common longhouse and a man could sleep in one only upon her invitation. The bedrooms were small. (I only looked in, was not invited in!)

 

It was not so much that they were dominated by female rulers but that public opinion, customs, rules etc. were all formed and sustained by the public opinion of the women.

[Guest MacPhee]

Isn't the idea of women ruling, contrary to nature? A woman's role is to admit children into the world. This is an essential role, but intrinsically a passive one. In the sense, that the woman serves as a vessel to harbour and nourish a fetus, until it grows strong enough to escape from her womb. But the passive womb does not, by itself, create new life. To create new life, a vigorous act is required - which is performed by a man, who implants the vital seed.

 

Much as seeds are implanted into earth, by an active sower. The passive earth cannot, by itself, generate new life. It lies inert, until an active agent sows the seed.

 

Thus, one would expect women to be essentially passive by nature, and men to be essentially active.

This active male nature, explains why men usually take control, and are nearly always the leaders of society.

 

And History seems to bear this out - if you were asked to name great male leaders, you could give a long list: "Caeser, Attilla the Hun, Ghengis Kahn, Charlemagne, Alfred the Great, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, Obama."

 

But how long would the list of great female leaders be?

[labelwench]

Isn't the idea of women ruling, contrary to nature? A woman's role is to admit children into the world. This is an essential role, but intrinsically a passive one. In the sense, that the woman serves as a vessel to harbour and nourish a fetus, until it grows strong enough to escape from her womb. But the passive womb does not, by itself, create new life. To create new life, a vigorous act is required - which is performed by a man, who implants the vital seed.

 

Much as seeds are implanted into earth, by an active sower. The passive earth cannot, by itself, generate new life. It lies inert, until an active agent sows the seed.

Thus, one would expect women to be essentially passive by nature, and men to be essentially active.

This active male nature, explains why men usually take control, and are nearly always the leaders of society.

 

And History seems to bear this out - if you were asked to name great male leaders, you could give a long list: "Caeser, Attilla the Hun, Ghengis Kahn, Charlemagne, Alfred the Great, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, Obama."

 

But how long would the list of great female leaders be?

 

Wow!

 

Just 'Wow'.

 

It is not the stallion that leads the herd, as any horseman can tell you.

 

It's the wise old lead mare.

 

Stallions serve their purpose, and the strongest stallion will pass on his genetics and defend them from predation and intrusion to some degree. When he fails, he will have a ready successor.

 

In a study done here in Yukon regarding the winter predation of caribou and moose by wolves many were surprised to hear that it was not only calves and sickly that were taken. A great many were bulls in their prime, their resources depleted by the rut, or mating season which takes place in the autumn.

 

Men may assume that it is a woman's role to be passive, yet that is hardly the evidence of nature.

 

I suppose to stay on topic, I had better provide a link. None of us is likely to win a decisive debate on the status quo of prehistory but I think the following woman ruler is evidence that women can lead. Her tenure, from 1953 until the present, is impressive, IMO. As CraigD's link demonstrates, she is but one among many.

 

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926^{[note 1]}) is the constitutional monarch of 16 sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms, and head of the 54-member Commonwealth of Nations. In her specific role as the monarch of the United Kingdom, one of her 16 realms, she is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

 

Elizabeth was born in London, and educated privately at home. Her father acceded to the throne as George VI in 1936 on the abdication of his brother Edward VIII. She began to undertake public duties during the Second World War, in which she served in the Auxiliary Territorial Service. On the death of her father in 1952, she became Head of the Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon. Her coronation service in 1953 was the first to be televised. Between 1956 and 1992, the number of her realms varied as territories gained independence and some realms became republics. Today, in addition to the first four aforementioned countries, Elizabeth is Queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II

[CraigD]

Isn't the idea of women ruling, contrary to nature?

Scientifically, there’s no such thing as “contrary to nature”. There is only that which does occur in nature, and that which does not.

 

Human history contains instances of male rulers, and female rulers. Of our prehistory, we know less, but it’s reasonable to assume that this was also the case then.

 

MacPhee, I believe you’re confusing, the biological meaning of nature with the religious.

 

A woman's role is to admit children into the world. This is an essential role, but intrinsically a passive one. In the sense, that the woman serves as a vessel to harbour and nourish a fetus, until it grows strong enough to escape from her womb. But the passive womb does not, by itself, create new life. To create new life, a vigorous act is required - which is performed by a man, who implants the vital seed.

 

Much as seeds are implanted into earth, by an active sower. The passive earth cannot, by itself, generate new life. It lies inert, until an active agent sows the seed.

The idea that “vigor” plays some role in human reproductive biology, or that female gonads are “passive”, is nonsensically wrong, as is equating gonads with soil.

 

 

And History seems to bear this out - if you were asked to name great male leaders, you could give a long list: "Caeser, Attilla the Hun, Ghengis Kahn, Charlemagne, Alfred the Great, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, Obama."

 

But how long would the list of great female leaders be?

The list of famous male leaders I can name without consulting a reference is longer than the list of female ruler. I believe the count of female leaders at various levels of government, businesses, and other organizations, is smaller that of males.

 

However, I don’t believe your expectation

Thus, one would expect women to be essentially passive by nature, and men to be essentially active.

is supported by this anecdote.

 

In many plant and animal species, there are great differences between male and females of the same species, known as gender dimorphisms. In some cases, all females are larger, stronger, and more aggressive than any male, in others, the opposite.

 

This is not the case in humans. Although the largest and strongest humans are male, and on average, men are larger, stronger, and more aggressive than women, there are many individual women who are larger, stronger, and more aggressive than many men.

 

Scientifically, we say that gender dimorphism in humans is not as great as in some species, though greater than some.

 

The point I’m trying to make here, which I think is important, is that the human gender dimorphism isn’t an example of a nature-wide rule. In terms of a raw count of species, we find that most often, female are larger than and dominant over males. Among animals similar to humans, mammals, and more specifically, primates, I believe this trend is reversed, but not without exception.

 

The suggestion that a metaphysical male and female essence produces gender dimorphism in the many species is simply wrong.

[Guest MacPhee]

Thanks CraigD. Your post makes an important point about gender dimorphism in lower species - such as fish. Isn't there a fish species, where the male attaches himself to the female. Then gets physically absorbed by her body, to the extent that he loses his independence. And becomes a mere repository of sperm. But what have fish got to do with humans. Humans aren't fish, so why bother with their primitive behaviour?

 

You touch on the real issue, when you refer to more advanced species, like mammals and primates. As you say, in these higher species, the trend towards female dominance is reversed. And this happens, I think, because higher animals become less concerned with merely reproducing themselves - rather, they look to explore the world.

 

And such exploration is best performed by males. Because males are more free - they aren't tied down to passively incubating eggs in the nest, as females are biologically constrained to do. The quiet female must sit patiently on the eggs, while the loud irruptive male roams freely away to explore.

 

Exploring the world, inventing Science, Philosophy, investigating Nature, constructing telescopes to plumb the secrets of the Stars; building roads, bridges, skyscrapers, and the Saturn-5 moonrocket.

 

Yet none of these feats could be achieved without the nuturing female at home. Lovingly tending her children. A role which is essential, and honourable.

 

However, isn't today's society trying to strip women of this role, and turn them into mere "faux men"?

[Moontanman]

Thanks CraigD. Your post makes an important point about gender dimorphism in lower species - such as fish. Isn't there a fish species, where the male attaches himself to the female. Then gets physically absorbed by her body, to the extent that he loses his independence. And becomes a mere repository of sperm. But what have fish got to do with humans. Humans aren't fish, so why bother with their primitive behaviour?

 

You touch on the real issue, when you refer to more advanced species, like mammals and primates. As you say, in these higher species, the trend towards female dominance is reversed. And this happens, I think, because higher animals become less concerned with merely reproducing themselves - rather, they look to explore the world.

 

And such exploration is best performed by males. Because males are more free - they aren't tied down to passively incubating eggs in the nest, as females are biologically constrained to do. The quiet female must sit patiently on the eggs, while the loud irruptive male roams freely away to explore.

 

Exploring the world, inventing Science, Philosophy, investigating Nature, constructing telescopes to plumb the secrets of the Stars; building roads, bridges, skyscrapers, and the Saturn-5 moonrocket.

 

Yet none of these feats could be achieved without the nuturing female at home. Lovingly tending her children. A role which is essential, and honourable.

 

However, isn't today's society trying to strip women of this role, and turn them into mere "faux men"?

 

 

What a croc of crap, a great many women both invent and explore, women are not simply waitresses at the banquet of life...

[labelwench]

Thanks CraigD. Your post makes an important point about gender dimorphism in lower species - such as fish. Isn't there a fish species, where the male attaches himself to the female. Then gets physically absorbed by her body, to the extent that he loses his independence. And becomes a mere repository of sperm. But what have fish got to do with humans. Humans aren't fish, so why bother with their primitive behaviour?

 

You touch on the real issue, when you refer to more advanced species, like mammals and primates. As you say, in these higher species, the trend towards female dominance is reversed. And this happens, I think, because higher animals become less concerned with merely reproducing themselves - rather, they look to explore the world.

 

And such exploration is best performed by males. Because males are more free - they aren't tied down to passively incubating eggs in the nest, as females are biologically constrained to do. The quiet female must sit patiently on the eggs, while the loud irruptive male roams freely away to explore.

 

Exploring the world, inventing Science, Philosophy, investigating Nature, constructing telescopes to plumb the secrets of the Stars; building roads, bridges, skyscrapers, and the Saturn-5 moonrocket.

 

Yet none of these feats could be achieved without the nuturing female at home. Lovingly tending her children. A role which is essential, and honourable.

However, isn't today's society trying to strip women of this role, and turn them into mere "faux men"?

 

You raise an interesting point, MacPhee, which I have highlighted in bold.

 

Society and circumstance have brought about the economic changes which have made it necessary in many cases for both partners to be wage earners. This, I feel, can be laid at the door of society.

 

As a woman, I have observed that perhaps in our hard won gains, we may have been a bit too quick to throw out the baby with the bathwater, a case of the pendulum swinging just a bit to far too fast and now in need of recalibrating.

 

Only once did I attend a 'Woman's Convention' and I was sadly offended by some of the 'entertainment' which I found most deprecatory of men. It seemed very 'wrong' to me, and I recognize that wrong is merely subjective.

 

Still, 'Two wrongs do not make a right' and this did not seem the way forward to me. If women are in danger of becoming 'faux men', I would suggest that we have only ourselves to blame for trying to fight fire with fire and not anticipating that fire can easily get out of control and then everyone gets burned.

[maddog]

Yikes! :o I can see this is a highly charged topic, full of a wealth of faux pax material....

 

Sadly, I cannot give specific source to my propositions, though I can explain them nor do propose they are "Absolutely True!" I let you figure that out for yourself.

 

1. Amazon culture (mostly of legend) - not sure they actually existed, though in Ovid's works and other greeks have mentioned them. Were thought to possibly have migrated north and east above the Black Sea. There was a dig where a grave was found dating back to about 400 AD of a wormen tattooed (some of her skin remained because of arid steppes). This was in the same area, though I'm not claiming a relationship. For a source, I saw this on Discovery a couple of years back. There have been speculation of relationship to a Scythian culture in this area in the BC epoch.
2. There have been numerous pottery pieces of a "mother goddess" found in Europe some of which date pre-history. For references do a google search on "Mother Goddess".
3. I get where Charles is likely discounting 1-of examples (eg. Cleopatra, Elizabeth I&II, Joan of Arc, etc) as being isolated outliers (I do not agree with this per se). From what I can see is yes, in those examples, it may have been Maie-dominated society yet once having accepted a female leader, this society adapts in one of two ways recreate societal leadership to be gender-neutral
   (modern thinking) or redefine or attribute the new female leader with male-like qualities (common in Egypt).
4. Hunter Gatherer societies actually divided duties and may have "shared" leadership. There was a culture found in Turkey (I read this article in SciAm five or so years back) dating back to maybe 9600 BCE. They built house structures into the ground (subsurface). The culture has some female leadership icons.

So I don't know I buy Charles' premise. I would agree with "known history" being predominantly male oriented (that since writing of some kind). To me it not a requirement that it "must be" this way. I specifically do think there is some biological imperative why it must be so. That is about as stupid as some early 20th Century thinking that some races are genetically superior over others.

 

Like others I would like to see some specifics to make such claims. One method that can actually be done is that when such a challenge is made and not adhered to that this thread then get moved to the strange claim area. Sad fact is if so, the Strange Claim category would be completely full and all the other ones would be completely empty. :( Sad yet probably true.

 

maddog

Edited May 1, 2012 by maddog

[CraigD]

You touch on the real issue, when you refer to more advanced species, like mammals and primates. As you say, in these higher species, the trend towards female dominance is reversed. And this happens, I think, because higher animals become less concerned with merely reproducing themselves - rather, they look to explore the world.

I know of no clear evidence that any animal but us H.Sapiens are concerned with exploring. Even the other great apes, though genetically very closely related to us, and seemingly trainable to perform such tasks, don’t in the wild explore more than is necessary to assure that they have an adequate food supply and safety for their small troops.

 

The phrase “higher species” is a biologically troubled one, because in precisely measurable biological senses, we, the “highest species”, are not as advanced as many other ones. We’ve not evolved the most dramatically in physical characteristics from our distant ancestral species. We don’t have the largest genomes. We’ve not evolved especially slowly or rapidly. We don’t have the most novel organs. And so on.

 

Where we are clearly higher than all the other species is in our ability to dominate them. Despite our moderate size and not-very predatory body plans, we can essentially kill and eat, or just kill, any animal we decide to. This is because, for lack of a better term, we’re supremely smart when it comes to science and engineering. Though not unique in our ability to imagine, make, and use tools, we’re orders of magnitude better at it than any other animal. Amazingly, a crow can bend a length of wire into a hook and fish a morsel of food from a bottle, yet, though they might find one vast and tasty treat, all the murders of crows in the world show no inkling of an indication that they’ll ever making a vessel and weapon with which to hunt blue whales.

 

In short, we humans seem to me to have gained our top-of-the-food-chain status due to an evolutionary fluke: we evolved brains that permitted us to, for all practical purposes, learn without limits, in a way that no other primate or living organism of which we’re aware can. A consequence of this ability is that we can now, pretty much, do anything to any other species, with the notable exception of not being able to drive to complete extinction some, such as microscopic, disease-causing organisms, that we’d really like to.

 

And such exploration is best performed by males. Because males are more free - they aren't tied down to passively incubating eggs in the nest, as females are biologically constrained to do. The quiet female must sit patiently on the eggs, while the loud irruptive male roams freely away to explore.

This would be true only if women were kept almost constantly pregnant, and men took no part in caring for children.

 

This isn’t the case. Although women are physically handicapped in the late stages of pregnancy, and for a period after childbirth, for most of her life, a women in a modern society is about as physically and mentally capable of “roaming freely away to explore” as a man, and a man about as physically and mentally capable as a woman of metaphorically “sitting patiently on the eggs”, providing care and training for the decade or two (or more) that our slow-maturing children need. Although, on average, the childcare role may be chosen by or imposed on women more than men, many women are explorers, scientists, philosophers, telescope builders, engineers, etc., while many men lovingly tend children and emotionally support women in these professions.

 

However, isn't today's society trying to strip women of this role, and turn them into mere "faux men"?

I don’t think so.

 

I’ve never spoken to a female scientists, engineer, or technologists who believed society had “stripped” her of any role, not turned her into a “faux man.” I’ve spoken to several who believe that people who believe it is wrong for women to work in these fields, or for men to be primary childcare givers, have criticized them for, and in some cases tried to prevent them from, mastering and contribute to these disciplines.

 

I’ve know many men who felt that women that worked, at all or outside of a few traditionally female occupations, were faux men. One of the men I’ve know who felt this way appeared, my father, who was an MD, changed his opinion around 1990. None of the other men, and none of the women, worked in scientific or technical professions.

 

On this subject, I’m inclined to value the opinions of women who are scientists and other technical sorts more than that of men and women who are not.

 

I think it’s wrong to discourage or attempt to prevent people from pursuing honorable professions based on their gender, race, or other attributes not of their choosing. In my experience, people who pursue professions for which they are poorly suited become discouraged by their difficulty in mastering them, and change their plans accordingly.

[HydrogenBond]

There is a difference between innate behavior and learned behavior. I believe women can learn anything men can learn via education. But men and women are innately different because they are designed by nature to be complementary, thereby expanding the bandwidth for the male-female team.

 

All the legislated rules of the workplace, to alter the behavior of males, to conform to the different needs of women, was needed because they are innately different. If they were equal, female would have felt comfortable without any legislation. All the needed PC law and regulation shows how different they are. You did not need as much law when it was just men.

 

What is unique about male and female is it is one of the only social situations, where you can polarize into opposites, and they will still attract. The complementary nature of male and female creates an energy potential when they are polarized. If you polarize into democrat and republican, black and white. rich and poor, the polarization remains. But male and female can't stay apart.

 

What I would like to see is an experiment where male and females polarize so each can discover what is innate to male and female. Not based on what males say is natural for male and female, or what females say is natural for female and male, but what male say is natural for male and what female say is natural for female. What we have today is artificial induced through education and strong armed by law.

 

Getting back on topic, this experiment to polarize the female would tell us what is natural female. From that one could infer easier. The artificial version of today makes it hard to no how to compare cause and effect.

Edited May 8, 2012 by HydrogenBond

[Guest MacPhee]

There is a difference between innate behavior and learned behavior. I believe women can learn anything men can learn via education. But men and women are innately different because they are designed by nature to be complementary, thereby expanding the bandwidth for the male-female team.

 

All the legislated rules of the workplace, to alter the behavior of males, to conform to the different needs of women, was needed because they are innately different. If they were equal, female would have felt comfortable without any legislation. All the needed PC law and regulation shows how different they are. You did not need as much law when it was just men.

 

Yes, that's the point. Suppose women were, by nature, equally good leaders as men. Then women would just naturally take on leadership roles. No special laws would be needed, to kind of "smooth the way" for them. You'd see History replete with examples of women seizing power and ruling society. But does History show any woman who used force to become a ruler?

 

Under the Rose, in her always excellent posts, cites in #6, the example of Queen Elizabeth II as a ruler. But Elizabeth only inherited her royal station. She didn't have to actively compete for it, by fighting off rivals, and ascending the throne by strength. She was the elder daughter of King George VI, and this made her the next in line to the throne "automatically". So she just passively accepted the role. And in any case, modern British monarchs don't really do any ruling. They just wave graciously at the populace. So they don't really count.

 

This principle of force, seems to me important. Women have to be forced into leadership roles by legislation - such a role does not come to them naturally. And it attacks their essential nature.

 

May I salute Craig D's post #12, as a valiant but desperate PC attempt to defend against what everyone, at heart, knows to be true.

Edited May 8, 2012 by MacPhee

[labelwench]

Originally posted by MacPhee

 

Suppose women were, by nature, equally good leaders as men. Then women would just naturally take on leadership roles. No special laws would be needed, to kind of "smooth the way" for them. You'd see History replete with examples of women seizing power and ruling society. But does History show any woman who used force to become a ruler?

 

It is of interest to me that so many people equate 'power' with 'force'.

 

Perhaps one reason that women have been less visible in leadership roles pertains to the fact that until the advent of the printing press and electronic media that the written word was largely censored by church and state.

http://www.beaconfor...=415&art_id=475

 

All men are born unto women and as the predominant care-givers one might conjecture that it is women who shape men's destiny as potential leaders. The highly visible role of leader is often merely symbolic (as in the case of constitutional monarchies) or tenuous and fraught with danger (dictatorships). Women are capable of assuming any role that is not being satisfactorily addressed by men, but often prefer not to, seeing such as a waste of their time and resources, especially within restrictive societies. There are many paths to 'power', and equally many that are not highly visible.

 

From the strictly biological perspective, men are more expendable, fewer of them needed for procreation. Though women may not demonstrate as a high a profile in the circles of power, I would suggest that their influence is far greater than most are aware.

(One of the cardinal sins has ever been to insult someone's mother, more so than if similar insult is brought against the father. Now why would that be, I wonder....)

[CraigD]

Yes, that's the point. Suppose women were, by nature, equally good leaders as men. Then women would just naturally take on leadership roles. No special laws would be needed, to kind of "smooth the way" for them. You'd see History replete with examples of women seizing power and ruling society. But does History show any woman who used force to become a ruler?

I’m not a historian, so can think quickly of only a few examples of women who used force, indirectly, to become rulers. The first to come to mind is Catherine II (“the great”), Empress of Russia 1762-1798, who deposed and replaced her husband, Peter III. Catherine didn’t personally, physically fight Peter, but appealed to and gained the support of elements of the Russian military. I believe such tactics – rulers, male or female, fighting by proxy with armies, rather than personally – were then and continued to be far more common than tactics involving the personally use of force.

 

Women have to be forced into leadership roles by legislation - such a role does not come to them naturally. And it attacks their essential nature.

I believe that some hereditary rulers, male and female, are forced to accept their offices. However, some, such as Catherine the great, clearly exert much effort, incur great risk, and ruthlessly employ treachery and force to take them.

 

MacPhee, I believe you make the mistake of assuming that an attribute of a class of people applies to all individuals in it. I can’t scientifically support that women, on average, are less desirous or capable or being leaders of nations, but would not be surprised if a well-conducted scientific study showed this to be true. However, this does not mean that an individual woman is less desirous or capable of leading than an individual man, or that a woman in a position of opportunity to become a leader will not succeed in a completion against men in similar positions of opportunity.

 

In modern governments that elect their executive, such as the United States’, political competition for that office (In the US, the Presidency) are usually similar to those for other elected offices (eg: Senate and Representative seats). Although every US Executive has been, and most legislators are, male, some legislators – about 17% - are female (source: this senate.gov document). Many of these women won election contests against male candidates.

 

I believe this, and similar data of present day and old governments, refute the idea that all women leaders have to be forced into the role.

 

It is true that, in many nations, women were once, and in some nations, still are, prohibited by custom and/or law, from holding public office, and many other privileges granted by law to men, such as voting or owning property. In many if not all cases, these customary and legal prohibitions were explicitly voided by legislation, though in many nations, this legal history is complicated – in the US, in 1920 the 16th Amendment explicitly prohibited denying the right to vote on account of sex (gender), but doesn’t address women holding public office. As the US Constitution grants the right to hold public office to “people”, not exclusively “men”, it’s arguable that women have always held this right, and the right to vote in the US, but prac

 

May I salute Craig D's post #12, as a valiant but desperate PC attempt to defend against what everyone, at heart, knows to be true.

It’s false that everyone, at heart, knows it to be true that women are inferior to men as leaders or in most other roles, as I know in my heart that this is false.

 

Worse, I believe that the idea that women should not be afforded the same customary and legal privileges as men is, I think, a bad one, for many reasons. I believe women, and men, should be free to chose not to exercise a given legal privilege, such as voting or attempting to win election or appointment to public office, but not prohibited by law from doing so.

[modest]

The example of Cleopatra is good one. By that time the Roman Emperors set her up to rule the polytheistic religion of Egypt was swiftly being replaced by Christianity.

Cleopatra's rule of Egypt had nothing to do with Christianity, given that she died before Jesus was born. Please, can you explain what you mean or give a source supporting it?

 

In the time of Cleopatra both Egypt and Rome were polytheistic.