So if someone in the USA is arrested by a female police officer and tried by a female judge are they oppressed by women or by men?

Which amounts to the state raising the children .... — Apollodorus

Paying mothers to stay home is the state raising children. Well, no. The mother is the one raising the child.

There's something quite odd in the logic you are applying here... and again with

How many are there under the Taliban? — Apollodorus

...as if our choice were Republicanism or Islamic fundamentalism... and again:

So if someone in the USA is arrested by a female police officer and tried by a female judge are they oppressed by women or by men? — Apollodorus

...all over the place. Frenetic thinking.

Paying mothers to stay home is the state raising children. Well, no. The mother is the one raising the child. — Banno

...unless, say, there was a basic income payed to carers. — Banno

If the mother is paid by the state to stay home and raise children, then why would the state need to pay a basic income to carers?

Either way, the state pays for the child being raised. Which sounds better than paying and arming the Taliban.

If the mother is paid by the state to stay home and raise children, then why would the state need to pay a basic income to carers? — Apollodorus

Paying a mother is paying a carer.

Seems as you are having trouble following this. What it has to do with the Taliban is quite beyond my keen.

Again, your comments are frenetic.

Paying a mother is paying a carer. — Banno

Exactly. So the state pays .... :smile:

Yes; and...?

That was my original suggestion.

This was the comment that started this pointless discussion:

Just think of the thousands of abortions being performed throughout the Western world. If all those babies were saved and given up for adoption or raised by the state, you would have the population of a whole country. But we complain that there is a shortage of workforce and prefer to import people from other places to make up for it. Crazy or what? — Apollodorus

You suggested money used for abortions be used for adoptions or raising kids by the state; not to support mothers.

As I said, a glib comment.

You suggested money used for abortions be used for adoptions or raising kids by the state; not to support mothers. — Banno

I don't think so. By "raised by the state" I meant raised at the state's expense, i.e. either by paying the mother or paying carers.

Money paid for abortions would not be sufficient to pay for the children to be raised. This is precisely why I am saying that the state should make itself useful and help its own citizens when in need instead of squandering trillions on other projects.

A singularly unproductive conversation ...and the part played by the Taliban remains unexplained.

.and the part played by the Taliban remains unexplained. — Banno

Correct. I can think of no explanation as to why western governments would pump trillions into Afghanistan and arm the Taliban instead of using the money to help their own citizens when in need.

What are the benefits and the problems with patriarchy and with matriarchy? — Athena

In a matriarchy both genders are subject to becoming narcissistic coroporate machines. Then, we end up raising a generation of psychopaths that keep shooting up all the public schools. Just spit balling.

Well, that is an interesting comment. Before you decide who is a fool you might want to have more information. But I am pondering what you said and wondering why you said it. It kind of reminds me of the movie Brave New World. The way technology has impacted our consciousness is fascinating, but that is a different discussion I would love to have. — Athena

I can be clearer that was muddled.
What I meant was the merits/demerits of a gender based society would match the merits/demerits of the genders themselves. I’m not making a commentary about what those gender merits/demerits are Im just pointing out the society would reflect them, whatever you think they might be.
The second point I intended to make was that gender is not a very good metric by which to appoint rulership or or who makes good leaders. I stand by what I said, that it is foolish to think a particular gender better equips one to lead or ideas by which to base society. Patriarchy and matriarchy are both flawed ways of structuring society.

I think traditional family values are important to our liberty and that is why I started this thread. I don't think having to leave children in a daycare center and working like men to support the family is liberating women. — Athena

And economic dependency on a husband as the sole bread-winner in a household (in the current neoliberal, anti-wage earner / pro-investor economy no less) has been "liberating" for the vast majority of women? "Traditional family values", as far as I can recall from e.g. social histories, hadn't liberated most women in industrial societies in the last couple of centuries, or abolished slavery, or struggled to overturn legal segregation, or attain universal sufferage & access to safe family planning (adequate healthcare that lowers both the infant & maternal mortality rates). Maybe I missing something, Athena. Which "tradition" are you referring to when you say "traditional family values"?

You mean Scylla and Charybdis? Not much of a choice there - do you want a female prison warden or a male prison warden? Either way, you're in prison. :joke: — TheMadFool

That question is not relevant to the importance of the homemaker.

I can be clearer that was muddled.
What I meant was the merits/demerits of a gender based society would match the merits/demerits of the genders themselves. I’m not making a commentary about what those gender merits/demerits are Im just pointing out the society would reflect them, whatever you think they might be.
The second point I intended to make was that gender is not a very good metric by which to appoint rulership or or who makes good leaders. I stand by what I said, that it is foolish to think a particular gender better equips one to lead or ideas by which to base society. Patriarchy and matriarchy are both flawed ways of structuring society. — DingoJones

How are both patriarchy and matriarchy flawed? If you can answer that, it would be the discussion I was hoping to have.

I think the main problem is that we have no example of matriarchal society to make an informed judgement with regard to possible benefits of matriarchy.

Moreover, if we take state institutions like police, judiciary, civil service, and political leadership to be "oppressive" because they are mostly run by men, at what point can we say that they cease to be oppressive and become non-oppressive?

Is it:

1. When they are run 50-50 by men and women?

2. When they are 75% run by women?

3. When they are 100% run by women?

Correct. I can think of no explanation as to why western governments would pump trillions into Afghanistan and arm the Taliban instead of using the money to help their own citizens when in need. — Apollodorus

That is a different subject but it is related to this one. Perhaps we can move closer to the subject by asking how do men organize and how do women organize? I will prime the thinking pump with a link to information about native Americans and matriarchy. With an understanding of native American matriarchy, we can then see how the Taliban is different. The link will partially answer the question about the difference between male and female organizations.

We might what to consider, in these different societies is a noticeable difference in ideas about the creator/god? Can we be clear that Judaism, Christianity, Islam are basically the same father in heaven worshiping religion. The big difference between patriarchy and matriarchy is the decent of property and ownership is related to power, right?

American Indian Women - Teachinghistory.orghttps://teachinghistory.org › ask-a-historian
In many North American societies, clan membership and material goods descended through women. For example, the Five (later Six) Nations of the Iroquois ... — teaching history

Moreover, if we take state institutions like police, judiciary, civil service, and political leadership to be "oppressive" because they are mostly run by men, at what point can we say that they cease to be oppressive and become non-oppressive? — Apollodorus

Oh my goodness, you asked a very, very important question!

There are two ways to have social order, culture or authority over the people. Native Americans have a tradition of handling social problems without authority over the people and more in line with the correction of our correction system that is not just and is not correcting!

In a matriarchy both genders are subject to becoming narcissistic coroporate machines. Then, we end up raising a generation of psychopaths that keep shooting up all the public schools. Just spit balling. — Cheshire

Oh is that why our banking system and some industries have been run by psychopaths, a lack of a father in the home? I think you may have a point. Would you like to explain it? What is the problem with single mothers raising children without fathers?

Paying a mother is paying a carer.

Seems as you are having trouble following this. What it has to do with the Taliban is quite beyond my keen.

Again, your comments are frenetic. — Banno

Once upon a time societies were organized by family order. Admittedly there may be some problems with that, but it does not become the government's problem. Finally, a discussion worth having, huh? It might suck to be a homemaker but that does not have to be so and when the kids are in school the homemaker can work outside of the home. The homemaker does so much more than change diapers and feed children. A homemaker has perhaps the most important job because the health of the whole community really depends on her.

If the mother is paid by the state to stay home and raise children, then why would the state need to pay a basic income to carers?

Either way, the state pays for the child being raised. Which sounds better than paying and arming the Taliban. — Apollodorus

Apollodorus, think about what you are saying very carefully. The USSR "liberated" women long before the US did. This is an economic thing that we have adopted. First, you tax people's income. Second, you promote the notion that all adults must be productive members of society and earn a living, and third, the state will raise the children. That is not the democracy we defended in two world wars.

Once upon a time societies were organized by family order. — Athena

Yes, that is the nature of an hereditarily aristocratic society.

I will prime the thinking pump with a link to information about native Americans and matriarchy. With an understanding of native American matriarchy, we can then see how the Taliban is different. — Athena

But if you use the Taliban as being representative of male organizational stategy, are you not skewing the comparison? After all, the fact of patriarchy is only one of the two major influences on that group, the other, of course, being (I would argue extreme) theocratic zealotry.

How are both patriarchy and matriarchy flawed? If you can answer that, it would be the discussion I was hoping to have.
1h — Athena

I think the answer to that, is that we as a species have displayed the ability to move beyond the natural and into the ideal in a quest for justice and equity. Since we have demonstrated being able to concieve of such (admittedly abstract) things as equity, justice, and morality, as well as being capable of structuring society in pursuit of those ends, have we not assumed an ethical responsibility to renounce such preconcieved notions of "authority" and "rule" as are presented by both patriarchy and matriarchy? Is there not an "onus" upon us?

an "onus" upon us — Michael Zwingli

Haha....unintentional, but I love it!

Once upon a time societies were organized by family order.
— Athena

Yes, that is the nature of an hereditarily aristocratic society.

I will prime the thinking pump with a link to information about native Americans and matriarchy. With an understanding of native American matriarchy, we can then see how the Taliban is different.
— Athena

But if you use the Taliban as being representative of male organizational stategy, are you not skewing the comparison? After all, the fact of patriarchy is only one of the two major influences on that group, the other, of course, being (I would argue extreme) theocratic zealotry.

How are both patriarchy and matriarchy flawed? If you can answer that, it would be the discussion I was hoping to have.
1h
— Athena

I think the answer to that, is that we as a species have displayed the ability to move beyond the natural and into the ideal in a quest for justice and equity. Since we have demonstrated being able to concieve of such (admittedly abstract) things as equity, justice, and morality, as well as being capable of structuring society in pursuit of those ends, have we not assumed an ethical responsibility to renounce such preconcieved notions of "authority" and "rule" as are presented by both patriarchy and matriarchy? Is there not an "onus" upon us? — Michael Zwingli

You make my heart sing. :love: People in US political forums just do not understand what the discussion is about and I was so frustrated with them, I was ready to go blow my brains out. People in this forum are actually saying intelligent things and are moving the conversation forward.

Matriarchies are not the hierarchy of authority above the people that patriarchies are, and property descends through females, not males, giving them the power ownership. The focus of matriarchy is culture, not the western notion of god-given authority over others.

It is not my intention to say matriarchies are superior to patriarchies because I do not think matriarchies would have advanced technology. :flower: In a culturally-based society people will discover ways to survive and things like clay pots that carry water and they decorate them beautifully. That creativity is not exactly technology. Technology identifies why some dirt makes good pots and other dirt absolutely will not make a good pot. Technology answers the question "why". Mom may show you how to bake bread, but Dad is more likely to know why the bread rises or does not rise. That may not be the best example but there is an important difference between "how" and "why" and I think men are more apt to ponder "why" things are as they are. Of course, women can do that as well men can, but first, they need to be removed from their family responsibilities. Their domestic brain that operates on hormones, needs to be trained to think technologically.

This is not just a matter of how the brain is prepared, but it is also very visceral. I have never heard a man talk about how hard it is to go back to work when a child is born and of feeling pulled between the child and the job, and dealing with feelings of guilt. I think denying the hormonal difference between men and women is a mistake. Just as I think denying the hormonal difference of some gay people is a mistake and for darn sure, we know transgender people do hormonal therapy. When a man watches football his testosterone level increases but that does not happen when a baby cries. Women have a hormonal response to a baby crying that men do not have. I know, burn me at the cross because I am saying males and females are different and that difference includes how they organize as families or opposing football teams. However, I am not saying one is better than the other. It seems quite obvious to me, nature planned on us being different and working together.

Why are you saying the ideal means denying women the ability to stay home and care for the family?

You make my heart sing. — Athena

Yes, singing is a good sign...

Yes, singing is a good sign... — Michael Zwingli

But what songs should I be singing? You tease me. I am not sure of what you intend to communicate.

Seems as you are having trouble following this. What it has to do with the Taliban is quite beyond my keen.

Again, your comments are frenetic. — Banno

You're just being you usual gadfly self, nipping and biting without adding much. Whether or not I agree with him, what @Apollodorus is saying is pretty clear.

he homemaker does so much more than change diapers and feed children. — Athena

My son's life and career were disrupted by the pandemic, so he is going back to school to study for a new career. His girlfriend, on the other hand, is a very high-paid professional who works 70 hours a week. Since my son's schedule is much more flexible and open, he has taken over the "homemaker" job - cooking, cleaning, shopping, getting cars worked on and refrigerators repaired... She is so happy to have him in her life. He's made her life easier and better by making a home for her, for them. And that's without children. It doesn't hurt that he's a great cook.

How are both patriarchy and matriarchy flawed? If you can answer that, it would be the discussion I was hoping to have. — Athena

I would say because they are based off gender, and that is a poor metric by which to base societal structures upon. I don’t think one gender is better as leaders of society than another, the better structure will be determined by traits that do not rely on gender like education, integrity, fair and equal laws etc. I don’t think any of those traits rely on a specific answer.
Do you think one or the other (patriarchy or matriarchy) is better? I just din’t think I can agree. Male or female, politicians are all the same variety of lying, game playing scum we all hate.
Society is best run by a system where both genders get a seat at the table, where the “talent pool” of society running folks is at its widest. Why exclude someone based in gender?