I received a reply to one of my articles (“Thoughts on matriarchial societies: Africa, slavery, and rebuilding – the effects of non-organized society“) that was quite interesting. I’m not sure who sent it (it really doesn’t matter) but I wish to discuss the ideas behind it and what they mean. It reflects a common point of view. This is what the reply said:
“Women POWER = GIFT ECONOMY = ALL FOR FREE TO ALL = no manipulations, corruption, lies… needed = NO VIOLENCE = no wars any more”
I’ve seen this philosophy many many times before. It is generally associated with feminism so I’d think it was a female with feminist points of view. Like many feminist statements its like a ‘generic’ reaction or explanation, referring to the same familiar themes and ideas that are repeated over and over again and are based on erroneous viewpoints.
The basic premise of this philosophy is (and I’ve heard many of them state it this way too): “if females ruled the world, there would be no need, no violence, and we’d all live in peace, plenty, and harmony”. This philosophy, though, is UNSUBSTANTIATED and UNPROVEN. Nowhere, in the history of the world, has females shown or created these conditions! This means that the whole philosophy is “utopian”, a ‘fantasy’, and it often appears that way too. I’ve seen many females preach these ideas and have this look on their face of ‘being in the clouds’, like they are imagining, in their minds, the utopia that they think it would be. But that’s all it is . . . a fantasized utopia (like someone fantasizing about winning the lottery) . . . that has no base in the ‘real world’.
But why, then, do they think this? First of all, they are based on images that have come up about the female in Western society:
- The image of the loving female
- The image of the caring female.
- The image of the giving female.
These images are all based on many Western European cultural principles that, in the beginning, gave females great meaning and defined the female. Because of this, these images give many females an illusionary power that adherents to this philosophy seem to think they have or want. As a result, they try to greatly emulate and emphasize these qualities, generally to great excess, often going a ‘overboard’. I have often felt that part of the reason why they did this is because it is a reaction to female dehumanization and alienation. They are trying to ‘grab hold’ of something that gave them a worth and meaning in life which the modern world has destroyed. As a result, this philosophy seems to reflect a ‘scramble for power and worth’ by the females and, if anyone has seen it in action, that’s exactly what it looks like. But they have done this to such an extent that they have created a false, distorted, and warped image of the female. In many ways, they are trying to “recreate” these conditions again, to ‘make it true’ again by “forcing” things to be that way, giving themselves all these qualities they don’t really have. As a result, they have, in their minds, turned these qualities into a great myth, making the female as this great thing that they aren’t, ascribing to them abilities, traits, and qualities that they don’t have.
The images, above, really originate from the ‘The female as saint and saviour” myth. This image has origins in a number of cultural elements such as:
- The influence of Mother Mary. In Christianity, Mother Mary, the mother of Jesus, was often viewed as a “symbol of saintliness”. Being the mother of Jesus, she became the symbol of motherhood and femaleness in much of Western Christendom. As a result, many females tried to emulate and imitate these virtues. Because of this, it made it so that the image of the female is greatly associated with Christian values, such as being loving, caring, willing to give, charitable, peace-loving, etc. In many ways, the female became the ‘poster child’ of Christian values. Even to this day, people often expect the female to be almost ‘saintly’, ‘pure’, and emulate much of these Christian values.
- The chivalrous worship 0f the female in Victorianism. The chivalric Victorian era created a time when the female was treated much like a ‘princess’ or ‘lady’. They were given all these honors and great respect. They were ‘put on a pedestal’, as they say. This seemed to come somewhat natural as this mentality seemed to flow directly from the ‘female as Mother Mary’, which had been so prevalent in Western Europe. As a result, it continued the distorted view of the female, making her almost angelic with all these special almost holy qualities. And, more importantly, this Victorian chivalric worship of the female made it so that these saintly holy qualities were removed or separated from religion, as if it was an “innate” quality in the female. As a result, the female was viewed as having saintly and holy Christian values as if naturally.
The reply, above, shows these qualities, ascribing to the female ‘holy’ and ‘sacred’ . . . and Christian . . . qualities such as giving things freely (“gift economy” and “everything free”), “no corruption and lies”, and “no wars anymore”. These are all nice Christian values.
And who’s going to give it? . . . The female, of course, the ‘poster child’ of these values.
The ‘”female as saint and saviour” myth has so ascribed such high and mighty values to the female that it says that they are the only ones who know and can manifest these good Christian and holy qualities. The males can’t manifest these qualities for, as we all know, males are nothing but money-grubbing, lying, cheating, violent, war-mongering un-Christian people. Thank God for the female, with her “innate” Christian values, to save us!
The problem is that THE FEMALE HAS NEVER SAVED US, nor have they ever created a ‘utopian world’ based on these values anywhere or at any time . . . not in any matriarchy, not in any place, not in any country.
But if we look at the ‘real world’ we find that females are not saints, nor do they reflect all these high and mighty qualities. They are just as corrupt, evil, and ‘bad’ as any male can be, though it generally manifests itself differently. In fact, my inquiry has shown that, in some things, females are worse than guys. The fact is that females have just as many malicious intents as the males do and are just as capable, and willing, to do bad acts. I’ve always said that the more we see females in positions of power the more we’re going to see their ‘dark side’. I’ve always warned to prepare for the destruction of the image of the ‘good female’. If they are in positions of power we’re going to see “Teresa the Terrible”, “Irene the Insane” and such. From what it appears we’re already seeing this. I’ve even heard quite a few guys say, “I thought the females would be more fair but they are as bad and corrupt as of the guys”. Of course, the assumption that the female is going to be ‘good’ and a ‘saviour’ is based on the ‘female as saint and saviour’ myth.
But the reply above seems to suggest that all these good things are a result of ‘Women POWER’, that it is an exclusive trait of the female, the ‘saint and saviour’. I see no evidence of this at all . . .
- “Gift economy”, “ALL FOR FREE TO ALL”. A ‘gift economy’ is an economy that is based on giving things freely to people without any agreement or expectation of a return . . . sounds almost idyllic. Of course, this usually entails an ‘unwritten agreement’ that there will be some sort of a return, such as that they will receive help when they are in need or some other thing. It is not, as she says, “FREE FOR ALL”. Interestingly, her thinking that way shows that utopian fantasizing quality I’ve seen in many females who take this point of view . . . a world where everything is free? Yeap, no need for corruption and lies and conflict . . . it sounds too good to be true. That’s because it is too good to be true. The ‘gift economy’ only works in small societies with established and constant cultures and customs (to maintain the ‘unwritten agreement’). No large mass society, in history, has ever been sustained by a ‘gift economy’. There may be forms of a ‘gift economy’ there but it is not what keeps the economy going. And so, the very idea of a ‘gift economy’ creating all the stuff she claims, shows the unrealistic utopian fantasizing that is typical of the ‘female as saint and saviour’ philosophy.
- “No manipulations, corruptions, lies . . . needed”. ‘Women POWER’ does not lead to an absence of lies, corruption, violence, and war. In fact, the history of women in power is showing as much, if not more, lies, corruption, and violence as seen in males. It only appears that males are more like this because there are more males in power. But if we look at the women who were in power in European history we see a large amount of manipulation, lies, corruption, violence, and war. In fact, many old accounts describe how females did a lot of manipulation, conniving, plotting, backstabbing, and murder to get their way. We’re starting to see more of this nowadays.
- “NO VIOLENCE”, “no wars anymore”. If one looks at women in power in European history we see that there are many women who have shown violent traits. In English history, for example, the two deadliest monarchs have been Queens (Elizabeth I and Mary). Many Viking and Old Irish accounts show female rulers as violent manipulative people . . . and showing no signs of these Christian ‘loving and caring’ qualities the ‘female as saint and saviour’ myth assigns to the female. This condition is also seen in other parts of the world as well. There is a great myth that the female is not a violent person. Studies and evidence shows that females are, overall, actually more abusive than males. Females show more abuse (physical and psychological) of their children, husbands, and boyfriends than males do. They also bring more hatred into the home than the male. In some countries (such as some of the matriarchies in Africa) this is almost an epidemic (or so I’ve been told). My own experience has shown the more violent nature of the female as well (I wrote an article about female violence in this blog called “What . . . females aren’t abusive?”). A lot of this female violence is overlooked and disregarded, as I have observed many times. Many people refuse this violent and abusive side to the female as everyone wants to see the female in the ‘female as saint and saviour’ model. In fact, I’d say there is a denial of this side of the female . . . again showing the fantasizing utopian tendency of the ‘female as saint and saviour’ myth.
All in all, the reply above, in my opinion, is based on nothing but myths, unsubstantiated and unproven, and based on erroneous points of view. In fact, to me, to say that the female has the ‘exclusive rights’ to all these wonderful angelic qualities, frankly, is arrogant to me. I could even venture into cold war political/legal thinking and say its ‘sexist’ and ‘discriminatory’ and ‘degrading to the male’.