The citizens cannot hold the government accountable, the government is supposed to be self-regulating. In Australia, where I live, politicians are forced to resign because of mishandled travel expenses. One example:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/19/liberal-mps-shock-2am-resignation-while-facing-icac-charges-plunges-sa-into-minority-government

It can be quite comical to see what Australian MPs are charged with when juxtaposed with what the politicians of other nations are able to get away with. But it's what a healthy democracy looks like, and Afghanistan's corruption problem going unaddressed is the biggest problem here. Neither unifying people with Islam nor educating the populace is going to help much.

Do you disagree and why do you think either of these things would help? — Judaka

In the Puritan US a politician can lie big time and do plenty of things I think are appalling but oh my god, if the politician is a man and touches a woman or comments on how she looks, today he will be tarred and feather and driven out of town. This is a complete flip from the 1970-1980 shows like Mash and Gomer Plie, and many more that got laughs because of inappropriate male behavior. We expected men to be sexual predators and we did create a rape culture. I don't think we should throw stones at Muslims for behaving as though men can not help themselves so women must become prisoners in their homes as we are not dealing with the same problem. Only recently we have dealt with the problem differently. My grandmother was horrified when my mother came home from summer camp with shorts and a bra. My mother became a WWII pin-up girl as we mobilized for WWII, and suddenly at the end of the war, women were to return to their homes, and stay there!

When my son and daughter came of age, Reagan was lying to us, and we slashed domestic budgets and poured everything into military spending. Those were hard years as my teenagers thought I was a fool for not lying and doing whatever it took to get ahead. And people still love Reagan. And was there ever a bigger liar than Trump and he is loved. Niccolo Machiavelli, said, it is much safer to be feared than loved. Especially Trump has done an excellent job of being feared and loved. What is up with that?

We can not keep our leaders accountable when we have no agreements on the principles we must defend.

Here is what the Koran has to say about leadership:

"It is out of God’s mercy that you have been lenient with them. Had you been rough, hard-hearted, they would surely have scattered away from you. So pardon them, and pray for their forgiveness, and take counsel from them in matters of importance. And when you are resolved on a course of action, place your trust in God; surely God loves those who put their trust (in Him). If God helps you none shall prevail over you; if He forsakes you then who can help you? It is in God that the believers should put their trust." (Quran 3:159-160)

Not so different from those who support Trump. I was blown away by how a good friend saw Trump and as the pandemic raged on, our friendship ended. What is a philosophical statement we can make about this? People will be thrilled to follow some really awful leaders, especially when they believe their leader has God on his side and their prayers give the man the power of God to be a good father or the nation. Really, how different are the Christians and Muslims? The only weakness I see in both religions is the divisions in the religions and how they bash each other. :roll:

I hear ya. Nevertheless, one of humanity's biggest problems is not getting our priorities right. For instance, save for a few enlightened countries, the defense budget outstrips the health budget which to me is taking the stand that we would rather die of disease than die from an enemy's bullet. It seems to make sense at some level but that's precisely the point - we, some of us at least, are facing so much pressure that we have to resort to this kinda warped logic. — TheMadFool

Christians are very proud of how much charity they give. At one time the US government paired up with preachers to get people to accept low wages and lusting for wealth was frowned upon. I have old grade school textbooks that stress cooperation and say things like friendship is better than money. In general, most people did not expect to earn enough to pay income taxes before the second world war, and speaking of war, the US demobilized after every war until Eisenhower and the Korean war. The US military ability was ranked 17th, with very small countries ranking better prepared for war. Iran liked the US very much because we seemed to chase the British out of Iran, but then we attempted to become an occupying force and Eisenhower approved of the CIA instigating a coup. I think our troubles with Muslim nations are of our own making. The only thing most citizens know if they know anything at all, is we were saving the world from communism.

The wealth and poverty issue would be great in another thread. I have some very interesting books on the subject. I am now reading one written in 1865 that argues in favor of accumulating wealth and I want to understand that argument before starting a thread. A thread bringing Christians and Muslims together would be great, but I need to do a lot more studying to do that. Should I make the effort?

Yes, and certainly women can be equally as domineering as men, when they are in a position of authority. Moreover, this thing appears to be had by males and females of all mammalian species that organize themselves into social groups. It seems a universal mammalial psychological trait, residing deep within what Freud called the "Id". However, this imperative to dominance is something distinct from agression, which is more hormonally driven. Males are naturally more agressive than females as an effect of testosterone. What this means, I think, is that women are better able to control the "libido dominari" than are men, because of male testosterone production. Surely, this is at the root of why males have greater difficulty in adapting their behavior to the demands of a modern, orderly society in which the rule of law places quite unnatural demands upon us, and so tend to fill up the prisons. For a modern man, learning to control his natural aggression so that he can exert his "libido dominari"/"will to power" in measured ways, is one of the greatest challenges that he will face in life. Many do not find a workable, effective formula for so doing. — Michael Zwingli

I am so glad you referred to all social animals. I don't think we should be discussing anything about humans without an understanding of being one of the mammalian species.

“ANYBODY can become angry, that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way, that is not within everybody's power, that is not easy.” So wrote Aristotle, more than 2000 years ago, in his classic work The Art of Rhetoric.Feb 6, 2013

Do get mad: The upside of anger | New Scientist — Aristotle

I am working on trying to figure out when to be angry and how to express that in a way that gets the result I want. When raising my children, I realized I can be a real tyrant and that does not mean being a bad person, but a lack of a good balance of power. It is not easy being human and our best hope is working together.

Nietzsche had some strong thoughts opposing Christianity and slave mentality. I like pagan values and Greek arete. I am out of time, but perhaps you can say something about what reason has to do with being civilized? At some point in time, when city living meant living among strangers, we became self-reflective and experienced ourselves as separate from nature and everyone else. We filled our newly discovered loneliness with a God and imagined a different reality.

Both are illusions of solutions to power plays in society. Neither matters, both are false, truth and what is considered "best" has nothing to do with what is objectively good.

Illusions are for those unable to deduct better ways and solutions for humanity that are good for all. — Christoffer

I disagree because I firmly believe both the hormonal but each is the result of different circumstances. If the community is being invaded, patriarchy is the best.

I heard there was a time when slavery was an improvement over killing everyone. It is better than the Aztec custom of sacrificing a people to the gods. A person can justify just about everything with a quote from the Bible of the Koran. This link addresses the Koran and rules for war https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/war.shtml Also I say the women in Afghanistan do not appear to be to afraid of the Taliban. They are being quite vocal about what they want and if they would only stay united, they might have a chance to get what they want. If the men in their families are supportive of them, the women have an even better chance.

I want to make a point of what history and age have to do with all this. Shall we begin with people did not have a long life expectancy? How do men think before 35 years of age? In a primitive situation, with a life expectancy of 35 years and no careers goals such as we have today, what should we expect? :lol: Yeah, heaven might look like a lot of women available for sex. By the time a man is 60 he might want fewer women and might dislike being called to war even more than the young farmers of Rome who probably thought raping and pillaging would be a great adventure.

The Taliban was using male children for war and this horde of males is mostly young. For sure they are not thinking about the children's college fund or their stock portfolio and retirement. They are thinking with their bodies and about how to satisfy their physical urges and how to impress their peers. Maybe the leaders are more sophisticated. In the right situation, humans improve with age.

Mullah Omar has a point though, no? People are willing to spend so much on statues but only paltry amounts on actual people (men, women, and children). — TheMadFool

Personally, I am in favor of saving the statues for everyone. We have not had the ability to feed everyone and even if they did, they would multiply and the problem would get worse. However, we can feed everyone's spiritual well being and destroying cathedrals, mosques and Buddist statues is wrong. Those who destroyed the Buddist statues would know that if it were a mosque being destroyed.

Likely as just like with communism, it's the means how this "well-being of everyone" is achieved I guess.

I think the basic uneasiness with the Muslim Brotherhood is that it doesn't respect so much "Western" democratic values like minority rights etc. — ssu

Because I have been listening to an explanation of what science has to do with liberty and because in the past Islam was very successful and more advanced than Europe, I judge what is most important is liberalism and science. Islam was both liberal and scientific when it was the center of world trade.

Being conservative and antiscience leads to failure and here is an interesting point, in China, it is the communists who are conservative. The communists of the USSR were atheist and deterministic, firmly rejecting quantum physics and Einstein's relativity. And in the US we are experiencing the solution to overpopulation. Ignorance, and a pandemic, and we remain trapped in an economy dependent on oil, although since 1920 it has been known that is the path to economic disaster and war. :grin: I think we need to understand ourselves before we can understand those we disagree with? We share being human in common. :lol:

Yeah, that patriarchy can cause problems. I just hope that when you go over to the neighbor's house and politely ask them to please keep their teens in check (and to please turn the kids over to authorities to answer for their acts), there is not some patriarchal SOB in his wife-beater, beer in hand, who tells you "Go fuck yourself, and deal with my teens when they are in your yard, not when they've skedaddled back to my house". Oh, and "Get off'n my land, you little . . .". — James Riley

Grandmothers learn quickly that if they want to make a difference, they better be very tactful and very careful about how they word themselves because we have no power over others and if we are seen as offensive, we find ourselves excommunicated from family. The point is, your way does not get good results. Not in Afghanistan, your neighborhood, or your family.

The other thing is that Islam spread through military invasion and conquest which involved killing, raping, pillaging, enslaving, exploiting and suppressing the conquered populations. — Apollodorus

I have a big problem with that because it goes against the Koran. We can know when people make a law, be it a government law or a holy book law, when people are doing what they should not do or they are failing to do what they should do. We have proof in this thread that those terrible acts of war are not limited to what "those people" have done, but seems to be an instinctive behavior when "we" are dealing with "them" and males dominate.

I am very troubled by my sisters in Afghanistan fighting for a better reality and being deserted by the US. My sisters in Africa and South America are not getting as much support as they need for a better world. But I am hoping someday my sisters are united and strong and humanity does a better job of being civilized. We can use the Bible or the Koran for a better reality and I don't know if reason will ever be as effective as religion? Rule by reason requires too much thinking and people avoid it. Rule by reason does not have the emotional appeal that religions have.

Every civilization is a mix of cultures, though, except the most primitive perhaps. — Olivier5

It is not like foreigners can just enter a country and impact that country culturally or politically. They may not even be able to assimilate because of prejudice against them. The US assured most foreigners would be assimilated by providing education for good citizenship. It was understood that by teaching the children American values the parents would learn. However, education for technology brought an end to transmitting a culture and preparing the young for citizenship. I think the new mentality has led to poor American judgment and failure.

I like your analogy to a person's home. The other day I was thinking about that, and the fact that in many neighborhoods there is that family. The parents, of course, ostensibly have sovereignty over their home and the teenagers that reside therein. Now, if they want to let the kids run wild in the house, that's fine. But when their kids start trashing the neighborhood, come over to my house and trash it, I have a right to redress. If I get no satisfaction, then, eventually, I will go over to their house, along with the majority of the neighborhood, kick their fucking door in, beat the shit out of them, kill the fucking kids and leave. But in deference to their right to run their house the way they want, I will not then hang around and try to teach them parenting skills.

Oh, and while I want to tip my hat to cultural sensitivity, I won't stand idly by and watch them fuck little boys or cut the clitoris off little girls with a piece of broken Coke bottle (not Afghanistan, I know, I'm just making a point here). You see, while it is expected that I should be culturally sensitive, I also expect people to be sensitive to my culture. Part of my culture is killing monarchs, racists, slave owners, traitors, emperors, dictators and other vermin who abuse the innocent. I simply ask that others honor my culture. I don't' think that is a big ask. :grin: — James Riley

I had to check to be sure this is the thread on Afghanistan and not my thread about Patriarchy versus Matriarchy. I would say your idea of how to deal with people who are different is pretty patriarchal and I think that mentality is what caused the American effort to make a difference in Afghanistan to fail. I do not believe using violence to defend our sense of how the world should be is the way to have a better world. However, it is in complete agreement with what some Muslims are doing.

That could indicate the presence of a cliché. Something you took for granted without prior examination. — Olivier5

Thanks and what do you think about the point I made?

Last time I checked, the British and Americans were NOT opposed to Islam at all. Nor should they be, I agree. — Olivier5

:lol: I laugh because I immediately disagree with what you said, and then when I try to explain that disagreement, my brain freezes. Have you experienced that? It is weird.

How about this, when you entered someone's home, you do not start taking what that person has. You should not disrespect that person and attempt to correct the way that person has decided how to do things. If that person is opposed to drinking alcoholic beverages, you do not sit in the living room and have a beer. If a person does not want you to talk about your religion in their home, you should not talk about your religion. If the person believes a woman should dress modestly, then that is how a woman should dress in that person's home. It is simply a matter of good morals and good manners. I do not believe the British and Americans have behaved with good manners.

I am a poor representative of whatever the Philosophy Forum might be.

The question is a problem for me. If I am asked to locate a process in one place or another, does that mean it is not happening in other places?

How would one go about checking if such was the case? — Valentinus

Your line of reasoning has merit, however, I don't know how we could validate that thinking happens anywhere besides in our brains. We can validate that thinking happens in our brains by measuring brain waves and MRI imaging, and being to prove with the imaging that the process of thinking causes the area of the brain that is activated to grow. How could we validate thinking outside of the brain?

The Muslim League started the Caliphate Movement in 1919 to restore the Ottoman Caliphate and was of course in touch with Muslims from other countries, including Egypt.

Abul Ala Maududi was a leading Islamist ideologue who wrote al-Jihad fi al-Islam. (Jihad in Islam).
— Apollodorus
Still, generally the Muslim Brotherhood is viewed to be founded in Egypt by Hassan Al-Banna.

Maududi was a member of the Caliphate Movement and inspired the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood (founded in 1928) and Jamaat-e Islami which he personally co-founded in 1941.
— Apollodorus
There you said it yourself. — ssu

Okay, now we are getting down to the nitty grittty. The reality this link speaks of pisses me off and most certainly has moral and political implications regarding western political action and acts of war.

Initially, as a Pan-Islamic, religious, and social movement, it preached Islam in Egypt, taught the illiterate, and set up hospitals and business enterprises. It later advanced into the political arena, aiming to end British colonial control of Egypt. The movement's self-stated aim is the establishment of a state ruled by Sharia law–its most famous slogan worldwide being: "Islam is the solution". Charity is a major propellant to its work.[10] — Wikipedia

It is my understanding the stated purpose of communism and Islam in the physical, social, mental, and spiritual well-being of everyone in a civilized society and I am having a hard time understanding why the British and Americans are opposed to that?

The Muslim Brotherhood may have been physically founded in Egypt. But I am talking about the ideology.

The ideology started in British India in the 1800’s with Muslim revivalist movements like Aligarh Movement and the Deobandi Movement.

Together with the All-India Muslim League they initiated the Caliphate Movement to restore the Islamic Caliphate. This was an international movement with members all over the Muslim world.

Muslim Brotherhood founders al-Banna and Qutb were in the Caliphate Movement.

Maududi who wrote Jihad in Islam in the early 1920's, founded Jamaat-e Islami of Pakistan that spawned the Mujahedin movement in Afghanistan.

Zawahiri who was a follower of Qutb founded Islamic Jihad which teamed up with al-Qaeda in Sudan.

The Deobandis of Pakistan with Saudi funds ran the Islamic schools from which the Taliban were recruited.

So, it’s the Deobandis and Jamaat on the Pakistani side, with some involvement from the Muslim Brotherhood/Islamic Jihad on the Egyptian side. Of course, they spawned other organizations through which they have supported the Taliban and international Jihad. — Apollodorus

I watched the video about Islam and was overwhelmed with information! Your brain seems to handle information much better than mine so I am asking you to attempt to make all this information more comprehensive to me. Why all the different organizations? Do they have different justifications for existing? Do they have different stated purpose?

I don't know if I want to add this to the thread, but what is their moral imperative, and can it be blended with Christianity? Like right now the US can be seen as the moral enemy of all that is good and how important might this be in escalating the problem instead of leading to peace?

Especially after watching the video, I am a bit broken-hearted that the US did not use Islam for nation-building. I wonder if anyone thinks that would have succeeded?

false dichotomy. if your fit to rule, you should. and if not you should conquer your ego before it conquers you, or worse those around you from your own foolish and frivolous action. — Outlander

To tie your post into the subject of this thread, what should the ruler achieve?

All surely true, but the sex drive is much easier to understand than this thing that Augustine called "libido dominandi", and (though he viewed and valued it much differently than did Augustine) Nietzsche called "the will to power". The sex drive is purely a function of physiology, being hormonally produced. As such, it varies across the human life span. The other attribute is more pchycological in origin, an apparently universal attribute of the mammalian psyche. Both the hormonal sex drive and the psychic imperative to dominance can be explained to be a result of natural selection, of individuals having these traits to a greater degree breeding more offspring across the millenia. The fact is, though, that we understand much less about the imperative to dominance than we do about he sex drive, and the former seems to have a greater influence across the human life span than does the latter. — Michael Zwingli

Hum, do women also get this psychic imperative to dominate?

Strongly disagree with this statement. Pornography does not help men objectify women less, and that's not even virtual reality. IMO this would make men even more disrespectful to women, because for many men, women would no longer serve a purpose (they wouldn't even be a thing to be used).

I mean I just can't imagine some guy blowing his load to rape VR porn and then going to a feminist rally. — darthbarracuda

This thread has taken a turn I did not anticipate. We know in times of war women are stolen, raped, abused. And the behavior of Americans in the prison camp holding Muslim war prisoners was absolutely shocking and certainly should be considered a war crime. I also received a letter from a Black convict that was sexual and seething with hatred directed at White women. I don't think a date rape is equal to a rape motivated by intense anger and the intention to abuse and victimized someone. One of my women lib. alarms went off when the word "mother", flipped from meaning a wonderful, loving person to quite an offensive meaning. Do you all want to go down this path or should we move away from it? I think this path is risky but also has merit.

I am willing to go down this path because another thread I started is a question of if the Taliban can succeed in making Afghanistan a civilization that can be admired. It also has merit because the US mobilized for WWII with pin-up girls and personally I think the metal and leather uniforms of Romans are very sexy. It is well-known women find men in uniform attractive and war escalates our mating instinct. Hum, the more I think about this, the more intrigued I am by what seems a pretty strong connection between sex and war. And this subject is directly and strongly related to patriarchy taking over matriarchal societies.

Judaka, I am in a bit of shock. I do not see the US as being free of corruption. I do not think our democracy is the best. And right now I wouldn't bet on it surviving another hundred years.

Our biggest disagreement seems to be different ideas about the importance of education. I don't think there can be good citizenship without education for that. I don't believe a democracy can exist for long without education for citizenship because if citizens are not educated to defend their democracy, they can not defend their democracy. For that reason, I believe the US is in big trouble because it stopped educating for good citizenship and now has the reactionary politics that put Hitler in power, and culture wars are tearing us apart. Our banking system continues to fail and when this happens we do not punish the wrongdoers, and our coins that once had value because of the metals in them, are no longer made with those valuable metals and therefore have no value. We are living with so many lies and extremely few of us could put our democracy back together if it did fall. Not enough of us know how to do that to make it a real possibility. And add to that, our industry is autocratic and people don't understand why that matters.

However, your explanation of people having no experience with democracy and no understanding of the necessary institutions seems obviously correct.

Didn't the thinking for our democracy begin in Athens and then Rome which became Italy and the place where the renascence began? I met a Serian professor who had a better understanding of democracy than anyone I have met in the US. Weren't German philosophers well educated in the Greek and Roman Classics before developing their own philosophy? The American Revolution began as an intellectual revolution and democracy can not be manifest without it. Except for Japan, that is a curiosity to me, unless we give Deming credit for the change.

I think you are correct. Prior to an attempt at liberation there was at least a space for emotional existence. Probably a patronised and exploited space, but one none the less. The mistake might have been the assumption the men were free. Which brings me to your next point below.

I'm pleased to agree. We have a professions that are designed to "burn and churn" where new hires aren't expected to last three years, but the industry relies on the output of the least paid employee and the ability to replace them quickly. We've tried revolution but no one ever makes it past the seizing of things and central control. It never blossoms into the ideal that justifies all the struggle.

Coroporations are finally having to at least acknowledge a social duty exists due to the power of consumers, but I don't think that alone is going to transform a culture. Like, society needs a heart transplant. — Cheshire

:grin: I was swept up in women's lib just like everyone else and had it not been for a recession ravaging my life and plans, I may still be cheering for women's liberation. But thanks to the recession lasting a very long time where I live, I got to experience jobs and employers from hell. With some satisfaction, I can say the really bad employers are no longer in town. The practice of exploiting cheap labor and going through employees very fast is self-destructive, especially when you need your employees as customers but you have pissed off so many of them you no longer have customers. Bad management of employees leads to them thinking of ways to sabotage the company. This can mean breaking things, stealing things, working very slow, telling everyone how awful the company is, and of course walking off the job.

Then you have the Deming model which is democratic industry. Everyone learns all the jobs and is prepared to advance. Everyone has a say in how things are done. Supervisors are trained to take responsibility and if someone goofs, the supervisor checks to be sure the employee understood the directions and then acts as a coach, supporting the employee in doing better. I would bet if we experienced the democratic model, many more families would be doing very well! I do not blame male hormones for bad male behavior, but the Autocratic Industry that has been terrible to all employees. Some ass hole demanding what he wants and thinking bullying and punishing people is the best way to get it and completely undermining families by not allowing family concerns to interfere with the job.

In the past, not enough dared raise their voice because when you live paycheck to paycheck you don't dare displease the employer. But as we gain security we might gain some power and demand industry use the democratic model and families get the consideration humanity requires. Then our democracy might have some meaning. While we are seeing changes, this follows women sitting in the seats of power because those in the seats of power before were not thinking about the women and children. Abigail Adams told her husband to think of the women when he worked on the constitution, but unfortunately, men were not ready to do that nor to be firm about ending slavery.

Our banking system and some industries reward psychopathic skill sets. I think people in general have the capciety for both; but if one spends all day in one frame of mind then the empathetic tool set necessary for making a child feel connected to the world on an emotional level could atrophy. If both parents are competing in a capitalist struggle then yes I think there's a greater chance the child misses out on the sense of connection. I wouldn't expect it is deterministic. Going to requote below.
What is the problem with single mothers raising children without fathers?

If two parents working is bad because no parents are at home, then a single parent working is bad because no parents are at home? Ergo, suggesting two people engaged in the coroporate world is the same as condemning a single parent trying to raise a child. In the sense of a numbers game it works. I guess "the problem" in this case would be the same as above. Where the demands of competetion force the repression of the empathic system that childeren ought have should they grow up seeing others as complete indiviudals with emotional depth they can have empathy for and make robust emotional connections with; but this isn't every case or even considered worthy of a guidline for one "ought do" in my perspective. The OP said to try and describe a problem I assume is asscioated with a cultural drift away from patrachrical society. I attempted to meet the request; and I don't have any desire to play the part the questions above are trying to script for me.

The better counter position might have been; well perphaps women will reduce the advantage of psychopathic skill sets by creating a coroporate culture that values relationships and human connections that laid the cooperative foundation for the civilizations we currently enjoy.

Instead, I'm depicted as criticizing single parents. — Cheshire

I am strongly in favor of your first sentence and it is concern about the negative effect that working outside of the home, can have on parenting and society at large, that motivates me to write. Further what you said about the demands of the competitive force on children is why I am opposed to leaving children in daycare centers for too long.

It is the emotional development of the child that concerns me and then the cumulative effect on the mass of children. Children growing up with a repressed empathic system and undeveloped emotional depth and relationships, may make a strong military-industrial complex, but it will not be the democracy we defended in world wars. I am saying women's liberation did not liberate women, but made being feminine taboo and made the patriarchy stronger. I am not saying matriarchy is better, but that a patriarchy that is not balanced by the female force is a threat to the world and is not the democracy we defended. What we have become is an enemy to humanity. So much so, people argue we would be better off if computers were in control. That is very anti-human.

I have add, it is not just the negative effect on women, of working for a wage, that bothers me, but also on men! The autocratic industry has been the enemy of humanity and our democracy all along. Men were treated terribly by industries that exploited them and held them powerless as they slaved for a wage. Sucking women into this too, should be the last straw and I am calling for a revolution.

I agree, it looks like I must think very carefully about what I say and maybe better say nothing at all lest I get mistaken for someone from Texas .... :grin:

But I agree that we have been betrayed and sold down the river time and time again by corporate interests and their political accomplices. "Democracy" used to have some meaning or at least people thought so. Unfortunately, it has become a bait to catch the ignorant, the gullible, and the unthinking, when in reality it is all about the military industrial complex, big bucks, and big tech.

And no, I don't think the state should raise all our children. What happened in the Communist Bloc was appalling. They had these state-run orphanages where no one cared, the children were totally neglected if not abused, and ended up damaged for life. Maybe in the West things would be run differently to communist states that were not accountable to anyone.

But I think the state should provide some form of financial assistance to its own citizens when it obviously has trillions to throw away. And the same applies to big corporations. They extract billions from society so they should give some of that back to the people for the people to use as they see fit.

Anyway, what is your vision for America and the western world? What kind of matriarchy or patriarchy would you like to have? Could you compile a short list of policies you would like to see implemented? — Apollodorus

:lol: :rofl: :love: :lol: I need to catch my breath. I have not laughed this hard for a while. Your first line is hilarious!

What you said about our democracy is sobbering. It is not funny at all. I will not believe the US is sincere about democracy until it replaces autocratic industry with the democratic model and I think doing this is as urgent as counteracting the manmade part of global warming. I am struggling with the effort to be philosophical instead of political. Do you realize the timeline of the US is almost identical to the timeline of Athens? Thanks to the spread of Hellenism and it being picked up by Christians and others interested in government and philosophy, Athens lives on, but the city/state did not. The US used the Athenian model for education until 1958 when that was replaced by education for technology but get this, Athens also replaced its education with education for technological. Not technology as we think of it today, but more along the line of doing things by the rules versus being educated to figure out what the rules should are and should be. That is a change in authority and the citizens' relationship to authority.

Oh my god! you just caused my heart to stop! "What happened in the Communist Bloc was appalling. They had these state-run orphanages where no one cared, the children were totally neglected if not abused, and ended up damaged for life. " An institution can not do for a child what a family can. I am talking about the complexity of our feelings, behaviors, and relationships. Owning our children as we own pets that wait for our return home, may come with a danger. Making the family meaningless may resolve some social problems, and create others. Please, avoid speaking the truth when it regards children because my heart can not take the stress. I am afraid we take our human goodness for granted. Which one of the paid caregivers will be with the child they raise for life, always ready to support that individual as they manage the trials of life? How much can they really care about the child and his/her future? Do we want teachers to believe they are the most fit to raise our children? If we institutional our children, what will happen to our liberty?

About patriarchy or matriarchy, both have good and bad points. Democracy is not either one. All the gods and goddesses play an important role in a democracy. Democracy is an imitation of the gods and I think this opens our human potential. I think family and property ownership are very important to democracy and our liberty. But we have to raise our awareness before we have enough knowledge to democracy. Right now our knowledge is so lacking we can not defend democracy anywhere, not even at home.

I agree that Native Americans have an interesting history and culture. But I think the main culture that is currently on the rise tends to be not Native American but Afro-American. Other cultures that I can think of around the world are Chinese Communist and Islamic. And they all seem to be male-dominated .... — Apollodorus

Some tribes were/are matriarchies because we can be sure who the mother is, and the earth is our mother so it makes sense the women inherit the land and the man's role is to defend her.

A woman's highest calling is to lead a man to his soul so as to unite him with source. A man's highest calling is to protect woman so she can walk the earth unharmed. — Cherokee proverb

What do you think Afro-American culture is? I will vote in favor of Native American traditional consciousness, a love of the creator, and purpose of caring for the land. There is talk of turning over the national parks to the care of Native Americans and I think this is an excellent idea. It will enable them to have their traditional life purpose and we all can benefit from their care of the land.

deleted and a correction was posted.

Unfortunately, I think that the (again, naturally selected for) "libido dominari" (or "will to power", if you prefer) which I think of as the root cause of the impetus to all types of "arkhe" (Ancient Greek "rule, authority, command, dominion"), goes much deeper and is much more profound and influential than the sex drive. — Michael Zwingli

I think the sex drive and urge to rule or "dominate" go together. However, we might consider, there are different reasons for wanting to have authority and power, so the human will, can play an equally strong role in our behaviors. Our will is shaped by our experiences, relationships, and social expectations. So how we think and behave is a combination of things, knowledge, emotions, hormones, and physic. If our size and a deep voice does not help us get our way, we need to figure out another way to get what we want. On the other hand, if everyone submits to us because of our size and a deep voice, we might gain the confidence to rule we might take charge because that seems to be what is expected of us. If a man cries, the response to him may be different than if a woman cries. But bottom line- if a male is ranging with testosterone, something is going to happen because he isn't going to be passive.

And, I would add, evolutionary adaptedness, which is perhaps the most important of all. Men, for instance, are simply not adapted for child-rearing, and I mean more than physically/anatomically, which is probably why most men are so uncomfortable with that role. — Michael Zwingli

I agree and disagree. It depends on the age of the child. Here is where we have made a huge mistake! The industrial revolution took men and women out of their homes, separating them from the children left at home.

The greatest success of our civilization was freeing the mothers to stay at home and be homemakers. That advanced our civilization. But the downside has been cutting men out of the children's lives. Men are as important to the development of children as mothers are. Until about age 3 the mother is the best person to care for a child, and then it is very important the father take an increasing role in preparing the child for life. Each parent has a different effect on the development of the individual personality and it is best for children if they have both parents working together to raise a child. Then grandparents play an important role and children who have grandparents in their lives are advantaged and statistically do better. By the way, next Sunday is Grandparents' Day.

And as for men feeling uncomfortable with a child, mothers do too, until they grow into the role. Female hormones help us a lot, especially if we breastfed the baby. And for hormonal reasons, we respond differently when a baby cries. But when the first baby is put in our arms and we are expected to do everything a mother does, a woman may wonder when the mother instinct is going to kick in and suddenly she knows how to be a mother. It does not work that way. Books and classes and calling another woman, are all part of becoming a mother. Here is where the socialization aspect comes in. As men and women, we try harder to do what we think society, or our peers, expects of us. But it is not all about socialization. Hormones play a very important part in how we react to children.

You could try making a thread about what's required for democracy, I think one can make an argument for culture being important but only way before the actual democracy has fallen. Most democracies don't even get off the ground, they start without the necessary legal institutions to defend them and fall into authoritarianism from the getgo. It's just impossible for civilians to investigate and redemy corruption, to
charge politicians with criminal activity, to prevent laws from being passed or repealed, at least as a long-term strategy.

In recent times, we've seen populations organise through social media to demand democracy, such as with the Arab Springs, but it did not result in any democracy, only chaos and anarchy after the authoritarians were deposed. The citizens can organise demonstrations and revolts, but they cannot manage a long-term democracy, that requires the necessary institutions and laws. — Judaka

You make an excellent point, most democracies including all the places the Allies have invaded, except Germany (formerly a Christian republic) and Japan, do not succeed and that is because the education that transmits a culture for democracy, must come first. When the Americans were Americanizing Japan, following WWII, Deming, an American took his democratic model of industry to Japan and taught the Japanism industrialist to use his model for industry. Had the US done the same in Afghanistan, the Taliban might have been kept out because the people would have experienced their own power, instead of leaving them to be as dependent as small children. But hell, not even in the US has replaced its autocratic industry with the democratic model. The US is very hypocritical when it claims to be spreading democracy. That just is not true!

How do you think a democracy happens without education and transmitting a culture for it?

I watched the link explaining the rise and fall of Islam and clearly when people start believing determinism and that they are God's/Allah's, favorite people, things turn sour. That has hurt Christian countries, the Islam empire, and the USSR communist. Insanity follows determinism and stops the healthy growth of an empire/nation. Especially when a leader uses religion for personal power and creating enemies that must be conquered.

Determinism- the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions. — Oxford languages

You can not have a strong and healthy democracy with that belief.

I did not want to destroy the Bamiyan Buddha. In fact, some foreigners came to me and said they would like to conduct the repair work of the Bamiyan Buddha that had been slightly damaged due to rains. This shocked me. I thought, these callous people have no regard for thousands of living human beings — Mullah Omar

That is the same as Genghis Khan's reasoning and the lifestyles are similar. What is not understood is building trade and industry can result in the wealth to have schools, hospitals, and feed everyone.

That's a very interesting perspective and perhaps worth looking into. However, do Native Americans all have a unified settlement pattern, social stratification, economic and legal system, etc.?

I believe that most of the North American tribes used to be constantly at war with one another. And if we look at more advanced Native American systems like those of the Mayas and Aztecs, it does not look like they were the most peaceful people on the planet.

What you are saying seems to apply to some Native Americans only. And then there is the question of whether it can or should be implemented everywhere in western society.
— 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. — Athena

I agree, it looks like I must think very carefully about what I say and maybe better say nothing at all lest I get mistaken for someone from Texas .... :grin:

But I agree that we have been betrayed and sold down the river time and time again by corporate interests and their political accomplices. "Democracy" used to have some meaning or at least people thought so. Unfortunately, it has become a bait to catch the ignorant, the gullible, and the unthinking, when in reality it is all about the military industrial complex, big bucks, and big tech.

And no, I don't think the state should raise all our children. What happened in the Communist Bloc was appalling. They had these state-run orphanages where no one cared, the children were totally neglected if not abused, and ended up damaged for life. Maybe in the West things would be run differently to communist states that were not accountable to anyone.

But I think the state should provide some form of financial assistance to its own citizens when it obviously has trillions to throw away. And the same applies to big corporations. They extract billions from society so they should give some of that back to the people for the people to use as they see fit.

Anyway, what is your vision for America and the western world? What kind of matriarchy or patriarchy would you like to have? Could you compile a short list of policies you would like to see implemented?

No, all native Americans did not have the same social organization, and especially important, they did not rear their children the same.

The Northwest Native Americans did war with each other and then they formed a federation and preached peace is the process of reasoning. They had a beneficial effect on the development of democracy in American. Our literate forefathers had classical/liberal education based on Greek and Roman, but they had no experience with democracy so their understanding of it was incomplete. The Greeks are a better example than the Romans because the Greeks had different city-states but when we read of Rome it appears to be a huge civilization under one power. In the new land were people who were living the separate city/state reality and came to forming a federation and a notion of reasoning ruling just as the Greeks did.

Man, I am out of time- I will have to get back to you. It would be great to have two or me. One to take care of mundane life and one to stay in the forum. We could come together over dinner and share our different experiences.

Matriarchy and patriarchy are social orders that meet different needs under different circumstances and they go with notions of the creator. Is the creator or patron deity a male or female? Is there peace or is life threatened by invaders and a scarcity of food? We might note the US became a military-industrial complex before women were liberated. That is a change in the social order, with social, economic, and political ramifications.

I do not have the feeling that the patriarchy of Christian nations was a good thing, nor do I think it has changed in a good way, now that females are to be as males. That is why I opened the discussion.

I love your argument and will check out the link. I think we need a different thread to discuss authoritarianism. We disagree on the subject because I think education is a big part of democracy. We can not defend our democracy if we do not know what we need to defend. Would the title "authoritarianism versus democracy" or "culture versus authority over the people"?

It is not exactly gender that should determine our roles, but the needs of the family and the community and things like democracy and liberty. Thank you so much for asking!

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? — DingoJones

Thank you. Our thinking is very different and I am curious about why that is so. You speak of a reality that is nothing like life was before the 19th century. Education before the 19th century would be liberal education and only a few men had a chance of being well educated, with a few exceptions. Some Protestant groups focused on the technological skill of reading so people could read the Bible for themselves but from there females were taught the domestic skills by their mothers, and males learned their father's trade or were sent to live with a man who would teach them a trade. However, the Quakers took a much stronger stand on empowering women than any other branches of Christianity and I think it was more influenced by the classics, playing a very strong role in forming the values of the US by participating in government at the Capital. The foundation of the culture was predominately Christian and the man was the head of the house, with God's authority that women did not have except for Quakers. That is patriarchy with Quakers and empowered women, playing a stronger role in shaping democracy than say the Mormons.

Throughout history, the division of gender roles was based on our different natures. Do you think nature made males and females the same?

When the giver of life was a goddess, women held the highest position and the society was organized by family order. Do you have any notion how this was different from patriarchal societies? Can you think of reasons for a matriarchy becoming a patriarchy? Do you understand I am not arguing one is better than the other but I am warning there are serious problems with insisting we all be like men and the homemaker is not an important social role?

When the state becomes responsible for childcare, increasingly the paid childcare provider will have to prove merit by showing a degree in childcare education, and the pay will go up. This is a huge improvement over leaving a 12-year-old responsible for children. But no amount of technological education, and pay, will make the caregiver equal to a mother or grandmother. Can you think of any reason why this might become a social nightmare along the line of The Brave New World?

Absolutely! thank you so much for that post. That is not the full extent of what a homemaker does because there are all the relationships to think about and one's position in the community, and what can be more important than raising the children well when there are children.

How much I wish I had someone to take care of everything when I thought it was my time to work outside of the home. I am quite sure my mother would have gotten into the movies as this was her goal when she moved me and my sister to Hollywood, California but child care plus having to support the family robbed her of that opportunity. A woman with children is not a liberated woman unless someone is will take on the family responsibilities.

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.

Oh please. Most of America's cultural features are not American, if you go that way. — Olivier5

Wow, why did you say that? The US adopted the communist income tax and is now destroying the family to have every adult in the workforce and is talk about the government's responsibility for raising our children. It adopted the German models of bureaucracy and education that shifts power and authority away from individuals to the government. It replaced liberal education with education for technology for military and industrial purpose. It replaced Greek and Roman classical philosophers with German philosophers.

Why would you say what we have is not American? Do you mean this is not the democracy we once defended?

The answer of course is the most successful Islamic nation that is still among us, even if it doesn't have a Sultan as it's leader. The Ottomans, the Ottoman Empire and modern day Turkey. The guys who actually conquered the last bastion of the Roman empire. — ssu

Very interesting! I want more information. How does this tie into a change of attitude that began during 1950-1960? Eisenhower and the establishment of the Military-Industrial complex and using the Cia for the Iranian coup?

https://www.google.com/search?q=eisenhowerhower+Iranian+coup&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=eisenhowerhower+Iranian+coup&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i299l3.20524j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#:~:text=Eisenhower%20approves%20coup,Must%20include%3A%20hower — google

Are we talking about something that is equal to Bush's evil axis that gave the US government permission to do whatever it deemed necessary to get military control of the mid-east?

When we had to stop explaining our imperialism as defending democracy against communist we we needed a new enemy. A small band of renegades led by Bin Laden wasn't good enough, so we associated all of Islam with the terrorist threat we face and this new evil was expertly created by Bush, right? All the time hiding why countries we never heard about were suddenly in our daily news.

Most importantly, ISIS and The Taliban are militia war groups and terrorists, even if they weren't Islamists, who would want such leaders? Who would expect anything from their leadership? — Judaka

You seem very well informed and I would like to know how you became informed so I might follow that path?

I have not seen anything that would make me think the Taliban is sophisticated. All my information is about the militia war groups and I am comparing this to nazi Germany. While some great music and philosophy has come from Germany, that degree of sophistication is not reflected in the thugs that gave the nazi party control of Germany. Both look to me like male hormones out of control. The peak of uncontrolled patriarchy. Women may steal each other's children but they do not turn them into warriors and put them on the front line. What ISIS and the Taliban have done is not civilized, and it doesn't seem to matter if they worship the Christian God or Allah, these men, Roman, German, or Afghanistan tribes are a plague to civilization.

I think your question needs to be tweaked. Not who would want such leaders, but under what conditions do such leaders come to power? A hidden question, is the US experiencing conditions that could lead to that kind of power taking control?

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?

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.