Our Shared Shelf discussion

I haven't finished the book yet, but I have a question for you guys. If women became physically superior to men, do you think the world would be like the one in the book? We know from 'Half the Sky' that communities in which women are in charge of economics, are far less violent, but we also know that girl gangs can be particularly nasty towards their victims. So what do you think would happen?

Cruelty and corruption are not limited by gender.

I would like to think women would have leaned oppression is not the way and do things better. Could hardly do it them worse.

So Pam, you think it would happen?

In Half The Sky, the women the talk about are not solely in charge, there is a sharing of power. In The Power, the women take over, and a lot of them lash out because of the oppression they faced, because of the situations they were in. That was one of the things I really enjoyed about the story: the violence that came from the women, initially, was largely out of revenge. It set a very real premise for the actions that these women took.

I don't know what exactly would happen if women gained superiority over men, but if I had to guess, I'd say there would be more of a mix, as we have today, where there are some countries that are very extremist one way or the other, and there are some floating in the middle, still trying to figure things out. I think oppression would be a much bigger deal if women were in charge, but I also think there would be women who would seek that revenge and want to oppress men because men oppressed them.

I'm with Pam, it's frankly stupid to think gender defines cruelty or morality.

Isn't feminism to say women are EQUAL to men? If you're sitting around thinking women are "goddesses" that would NEVER do the horrible things men do, turn in your feminist card.

Yes. Cruelty and corruption are not limited by gender. Therefore Women very much could do that

As for the argument "as oppressed individuals we would know better"... I'm a middle child. As I was picked on by older sister, so did I do it to the younger. Even though I knew it would hurt. I still did it.

I also cite:
- The Aunties from Handmaids Tale
- Madams and brothel owners who exploit underage girls for the sex industry. The Mayflower Madam, Lulu White, or the ones who keep the sex industry alive and kicking in Thailand.
- Madame LaLaurie- Female Slave owner who was utterly barbaric with her charges
- Women who poke holes in condoms or purchase pre-peed on pregnancy tests so they can trap a baby daddy. See craigslist for details on how you can purchase your very own pee stick.
- Heather Bresch, CEO of Mylan, the makers of the EpiPen. Epipens are used to help treat life threatening allergies and were priced at $124, she approved the decision that would raise the price to $609 a pop.
- The 'Hyena of Auschwitz’ Irma Grese was the warden of the female prisoners in this Nazi concentration camp and was tried for more than 30K female deaths. See also Ilse Koch
- Queen Mary 1- Aka Bloody Mary who was so devoted to a religion that she burned and executed those of an opposite faith during what was called the Marian Persecutions
- Imelda Marcos, widow of the Filipino dictator Ferdinand Marcos, who had amassed a collection of over 1,200 shoes while her people starved. She is the Marie Antoinette of the modern age.

Being a woman does not mean you have an extra ounce of compassion. Compassion and empathy are traits that are learned and honed and strengthened. So to are cruelty and selfishness.

but morally is also a product of experience and women have seen what oppression can bring men have had the power with out clear site of the other side.

For Example, how men women have been named as abusers in the cases coming to light since Weinstein. There are many powerful Women none seem to indulge themselves like men have.

For those set that men are inherently more violent or more likely to oppress others than women are and using such examples as "women have been suppressed so they are less likely to put others in that situation" i would like to point out that not all men oppress women, and there are cases - TODAY - where women oppress men. On many Native American reservations in Montana (I don't know about other regions) it's more often that the women in the relationships are abusing and oppressing the men.

Ross wrote: "For Example, how men women have been named as abusers in the cases coming to light since Weinstein. There are many powerful Women none seem to indulge themselves like men have.."

Just because it rains in Scotland, doesn't mean that Egypt doesn't receive rain either. It might be more documented, but it still happens elsewhere.

Yes, we are seeing a flush of women FINALLY getting the opportunity to be taken seriously about their claims of sexual misconduct. But to say women don't conduct sexual misconduct against men - even high powered women- is ludicrous.

What we are seeing not only is it accepted that women are being raped or abused by men, but it's something that is finally being persecuted.

I don't think we're at that point for men to feel the same way.

1) Millions of men in the United States have been victims of rape.
As of 1998, 2.78 million men in the U.S. had been victims of attempted or completed rape. About 3% of American men—or 1 in 33—have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. 1 out of every 10 rape victims are male.
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/vict...

2) But among men reporting other forms of sexual victimization, 68.6% reported female perpetrators,” the paper reports, while among men reporting being made to penetrate, “the form of nonconsensual sex that men are much more likely to experience in their lifetime ... 79.2% of victimized men reported female perpetrators.”https://www.theatlantic.com/science/a...

3)Here are some specific stories of male survivors of rape that have been completed by women. https://thoughtcatalog.com/lorenzo-je...

4) And it's not just rape. Men are victims of domestic abuse. "According to the CDC, one in four adult men in the U.S. will become a victim of domestic violence during his lifetime. That’s upwards of three million male domestic violence victims every year, or one man in America abused by an intimate or domestic partner every 37.8 seconds." https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bari-z...

I ask that you read these and stop imagining women as these pristine chalices. And men aren't complete neanderthals who only want sex and war. We are all capable of great evil and injustice. We are all capable of great triumphs and grace.

Pam wrote: "Being a woman does not mean you have an extra ounce of compassion. Compassion and empathy are traits that are learned and honed and strengthened. So to are cruelty and selfishness."

Very well said.

I definitely think women are capable of doing to men what they do to women - violence is not necessarily a gender trait, I think it's more like something that it is probably a genetic feature that can be either nurtured or oppressed by your upbringing and later on the people you surround yourself with.

Male or female, there will always be people who want to rule over others.

Equality is the solution, not dominance by either gender.

Pam wrote: "Cruelty and corruption are not limited by gender."
I'm definitely with you, Pam! I think that oppression is inevitable whenever there is an imbalance of power. There are people of both genders who would abuse power if they had it, and there are people of both genders who would use power respectfully and in a balanced way.

Personally, even though "cruelty and corruption are not limited by gender", I still have a slight doubt about this. I don't know why, but given the current education most women have received, I still got the feeling that they would do better than men, in terms of power and direction tasks, not only political but also at work.

I find it sad that many seem terrified by the notion of a matriarchy. I found the book inspiring and yes, let's give a female-led society a go.

Can't be worse than the mess men have made of the world.

An interesting point.

I don't think that we have discussed the merits or disadvantages of having a matriarchy. Just that women are capable of the same violence and oppression as our male counterparts.

Sooo.. OSS... who here is in favor of a matriarchy and who is against? Please include your reasons.

I read two years ago an interesting fiction about a matriarchal society but I cannot remember (nor find back) the title! Men are taken away to become soldiers and women are left on their own with the children. Somehow, it takes a while until they stop waiting for the men to come back and take action... but when they do, it's great. The village gets totally reorganized and the society they build is much more equalitarian.
I don't know if it does really count as a matriarchy though, as men are nearly all gone from that society.

I'm against having a system biased towards a specific gender, and I think this is what matriarchy implies? I'm not sure I have a full view of what "matriarchy" can include, but if it's just like "patriarchy, but with role reversal", then no thanks.

I believe that each person is unique and different from the others, whether of one gender or another, so that each one would act as dictated by his / her self, his morality. Then there are those who follow a leader and do what he or she says.

There are some matriarchal tribal societies in Northern India but they are under threat as people move to the cities.

A matriarchy would be a much more progressive society and so empowering for women. It is the best form of authority known to humanity.

After seeing the glory of a matriarchy and female rule we would laugh to ourselves and wonder why we ever thought men were capable of running anything.

Ester is correct . Genetically we are each unique. In Poems in an Exhibition I wrote ' 'Every poet like every human being is unique and has a unique voice.... ' The anthology celebrates our diversity .The youngest is 18 and the oldest in 93. They come from 4 continents and have every shade of skin and religion. We may be unique but it is great when we work together!

Jasmine wrote: "A matriarchy would be a much more progressive society and so empowering for women. It is the best form of authority known to humanity.

After seeing the glory of a matriarchy and female rule we would laugh to ourselves and wonder why we ever thought men were capable of running anything."

Right, real quick, what do you think feminism means?

We're all human beings so we all act in the same way in a global point of view.

I guess whether we are in a "women dominated" or in a "men dominated" world, it should happen the same things we know in the real world.

If history tells anything, it is that a Matriarchy is not less violent than a Patriarchy. In fact, one of the most brutal regimes in the Victorian Era was under a Madagascan Queen (Ranavalona I).

However, the best society would be one that is fully egalitarian with no difference between how different genders, races, religions, and sexuality.

Jasmine wrote: "A matriarchy would be a much more progressive society and so empowering for women. It is the best form of authority known to humanity.

After seeing the glory of a matriarchy and female rule we wou..."

Yikes........

James wrote: "Yikes"

James, Winston... Would either of you like to expand on your thoughts? I'm assuming you're against matriarchy...

I saw the movie last night on Amazon that was made by Michael Moore called "Where do I invade next". The part that intrigued
me most were the women of Iceland. They have accomplished more equality and respect from men. When the banks failed, the one that survived was run by women. The three women he interviewed were not power hungry or pompous. They were very down to earth and simply explained what had happened and how they were able to keep their country functioning. The men weren't threatened by these women, They were very supportive. They have a woman president who has very successfully governed for a number of years. I think it is all about how the women go about it. If they act like women and use their good judgment then I think the society and government could work. Iceland is an excellent example of this.

Pam wrote: "James wrote: "Yikes"

James, Winston... Would either of you like to expand on your thoughts? I'm assuming you're against matriarchy..."

Not much to expand on really, im against any kind of oppression no matter what gender is doing it. I was just kind of laughing to myself over her comment and how sexist it was. Im just incredible thankful that thought processes like that are in the minority and at a minimum.

I do not think that a matriarchal society could be better, it would probably be different but similar (I do not know if I am clear :) ).
I was just wondering, as long as there is life, is there any kind of domination, control or (hopefully) harmony? I guess my question is are there inherent to life?

MaryJane wrote: " The part that intrigued
me most were the women of Iceland"

An excellent example of women in leadership. (Going to have to check out the movie, thank you) And had been that way for almost two generations if not three since the 1975 strike and the first female president in Europe in 1980.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc....

Not a matriarchy. But a strong nod to what women can accomplish in seats of power. Thanks!

We have never seen a matriarchy last for generations. Women have been in power, but save for a few remote villages in India and islands in the Pacific, we haven't had generational matriarchy in a position of lasting power.

Can we say the same about an equal society? Have we had an egalitarian society yet? And if not, how far away are we from achieving it?

Yes, I agree that societies where one gender had the Power is a bad idea, and all genders have the potential for kindness, violence, etc. However, I don't think that answers the question: Would this happen? Would the Power actually change hands if women developed this ability? Would there be a matriarchy? The book itself suggests it would take five thousand years.
Thoughts?

I think this is a really interesting question. I think in some ways it would be hard not to turn into a situation like the book states. Women have been oppressed for so long that I think in a lot of ways it would be hard not to give into taking the power you've just suddenly been given and go a little crazy. No longer could someone touch you without your consent and not regret it, no longer could you be easily subdued. A very heady feeling for most. I think any gender could easily let power go to their head. However, I think this book focuses a lot on physical power and uses it as a way to explain all other forms of power and I don't think that's true. I don't think there would be a large political shift to matriarchy just because women became physically stronger unless there was a flat-out revolt on the government that led to war. I do think if women knew they were stronger that they would definitely use that power to defend themselves and others. I think there's the possibility of a large political movement towards larger equality. I think it would also be a question of how women are raised to utilize this power. Women would still be the ones baring children in this society so I think there would still be a strong societal and family push to use these powers to protect and care for rather than use it in aggression. I think if society did turn into a matriarchy it would take a significant time frame for these changes to happen. Women would need to control a lot more political and monetary power. Just some quick thoughts. Definitely worth thinking about more in-depth.

This is an interesting question! I'm still right about in the middle of the book so I gotta see how things keep developing in the plot, but I can already see the point from which this question arised.

Hmmmm. Well, first of all, yes to all of you who have pointed that women are so equal to men, we too can be opressing and/or heartless monsters...and excel at it, for that matter. ;) Please allow me to add Erzsébet Báthory to the list -look her up, the record of her accomplishments is somewhat unreliable but she still was no angel, believe me.

I...don't know what would happen in a sustained, global matriarchal system, to be honest. I think its results from one region of the world to another may vary depending on many factors. If we want this mental exercise to be helpful, we have to start from our current societies, not from the result of a world under centuries of that new system. As such, I believe it might lead to some pretty beautiful things...perhaps from those who would have been the most unprivileged yet also aware of it and resolute to bring upon a change. But I feel like there would also be others who would still seek to remain cozy in their privilege and not help much or bring any significant change.

I know I'm not being very eloquent, sorry. Kinda sluggish after the Christmas feast. :) I'm just thinking of, say, the recent turn of the events in Alabama, US. How the results showed that white women hadn't really done much for the cause, in comparison to WOC. Gender is a huge aspect of inequality, but there are others. Interestingly enough, they are linked too, in ways that I am still learning to decipher, but even so, they stand as challenges of their own.

Pam wrote: "We have never seen a matriarchy last for generations. Women have been in power, but save for a few remote villages in India and islands in the Pacific, we haven't had generational matriarchy in a p..."

There is a good book that might add more data to this statement, Pam - it's called Leaving Mother Lake, by Yang Erche Namu and Christine Mathieu. It's been a while since I read it, and I don't have the book with me to fact-check, but if I am not mistaken the Moso (remote China, on the Himalayas side) had an enduring matriarchy (not merely matrilineal) that lasted with integrity from time immemorial until the Communist Cultural Revolution. It is a very enjoyable reading.

Below is the Goodreads blurb:

"Leaving Mother Lake: A Girlhood at the Edge of the World
by Yang Erche Namu, Christine Mathieu

This widely acclaimed memoir transports us to the remote reaches of the Himalayas, to a place the Chinese call "the country of daughters," to the home of the Moso, a society in which women rule. According to local tradition, marriage is considered a foreign practice; property is passed from mother to daughter; a matriarch oversees each family's customs, rituals, and economies. In this culture a young girl enjoys extraordinary freedoms—but the impulsive, restless Namu is driven to leave her mother's house, to venture out into the larger world, defying the tradition that holds Moso culture together."

Ana Paula wrote: "Pam wrote: "We have never seen a matriarchy last for generations. Women have been in power, but save for a few remote villages in India and islands in the Pacific, we haven't had generational matri..."

Oh, yeah, the Mosuo. :) Too bad that tourism and, overall, the challenge of modern times and the need for survival has greatly changed things over there and put their whole culture in risk. :(

I disagree with her message which seems to be: Power corrupts, women would be monsters if we suddenly had physical superiority to men. Our long global history of oppression of women would have taught us nothing? I strongly disagree.

Honestly, what I could see happening is men taking the opportunity to overpower and further subjugate women. There would be laws and restrictions against women, maybe things would get far worse and far more oppressive to women.

Then again, maybe there would be a shift in power. But I think we would potentially start seeing more equality. I don't think that we'd completely overhaul the entire global system. I don't think, realistically, there would be a devastating war and a complete shift in power to favor women. And I don't think women would try to overthrow the entire system and start systematically oppressing men.

Honestly, I think best case scenario a power like this would start evening up the playing field. Worst case, it would give men an excuse to put in place more structures to systematically oppress and subjugate women in even more horrifying ways. Realistically, I don't see a matriarchy as possible in our world, with our history, no matter what powers women magically possess.

One thing no-one has mentioned, something vital to sound governance, intelligence.

Look at education attainment. Girls far outstrip boys and the gap is getting even wider!

On a level playing field, boys can't compete, they get whiny, they get lazy. Girls however are ambitious, hard-working, used to fighting an uphill battle and therefore succeed.

Soon 60% of annual graduates will be female. This proportion has increased every year for the past 15! Boys are not making a comeback, they are getting worse.

In 18 years or less over 70% of graduates will be female. So what do people think society will look like then? (sounds good to me, bring on the matriarchy!)

The proof is there people. Look at companies with female leadership. They are proven to massively best any male-dominated rival. I'd recommend the book "The End of Men" by Hanna Rosin for an inspiring look at how men really are the inferior sex, both now and in the future. The future is female.

Jasmine wrote: "One thing no-one has mentioned, something vital to sound governance, intelligence.

Look at education attainment. Girls far outstrip boys and the gap is getting even wider!

On a level playing fiel..."

Hello Jasmine, can you provide the references where you picked your data please :) I will be happy to take a look at it.

Jasmine wrote: "On a level playing field, boys can't compete, they get whiny, they get lazy. Girls however are ambitious, hard-working, used to fighting an uphill battle and therefore succeed.

I like your passion, but this here is a generalization. I know plenty of lazy, unambitious people on both sides.

And while yes, more women are getting their degrees we also need to be mindful as to other factors surrounding those degrees.

- Are these degrees in a bankable skill set? Medieval Literature or Theatre Management aren't highly sought after as much as a STEM degree. Quality is just as important as quantity.
- Is there a war going on in which the military is still hiring mostly men for combat work?
- Having a degree is by no means a ticket to a job. As a culture were seeing more and more the importance of Trade Skills over college debt.

I see your intelligence point and raise you Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. And I see your women in business and I raise you Heather Bresch or Marissa Mayer.

I agree that the future is woman. But not because we're the superior gender. No gender is better than the other. Just like no race is better than the other.

Pam wrote:

I l..."

Actually, I think Jasmine has a point here. Women have managed to achieve more with less time than men. Men have always had the right to an education, but women have not, and yet we are surpassing them.

Also, to answer your question about "bankable skill set" degrees earned by women: According to the American Association of University Professors:
"The National Science Foundation (NSF) reported in 2007 in Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science in Engineering that in 2004, women earned 57.6 percent of the bachelor's degrees in all fields and 59.1 percent of all master's degrees."
https://www.aaup.org/article/why-are-...
https://www.aaup.org/article/why-are-we-still-worried-about-women-science#.WkLN6FQ-fUI

Hey Holiday, thanks for the link.

If by surpass you mean women are aiming more degrees, agree. We are. For the first time in the history of the degrees.

But is that a claim that we are the superior gender? I don't agree. Because it did, after all, take us the entire history of degrees to get this point. If we were so superior... why did it take so long? If we were superior, why did we allow ourselves to be persecuted and undermined?

To me, to say that we are the superior gender means that the work of our forebears was not that big of a deal. To say the labor strikes and food strikes are inconsequential. And I don't buy that.

As much as I don't buy that men are the superior gender either. Cause they're not. Individuals of both genders make stupid, greedy and utterly depraved decisions. We are equal in our failings as much as we are equal in our greatness.

I do believe we will see more women come to the forefront and excell. Because they are reaping the opportunity that both genders helped create.

Pam wrote: "Jasmine wrote: "On a level playing field, boys can't compete, they get whiny, they get lazy. Girls however are ambitious, hard-working, used to fighting an uphill battle and therefore succeed.

I l..."

Then why do you agree with me that the future is female if you don't agree with my reasoning?

Jasmine wrote: "..Then why do you agree with me that the future is female if you don't agree with my reasoning? "

Thanks Jasmine. Hope this helps explain my thoughts. Let me know if you have any questions.
- rape and sexual violence cases are finally seeing trials and justice. Rape kits are being processed. Universities are changing policy on how they confront it. Laws and judgements are being reviewed as not harsh enough detriments. http://time.com/time-person-of-the-ye...
- Representation is being acknowledged. Not just women in roles. But black women. Asian women. Queer women. Old women. And this representation is not just in front of the camera, but behind it as well. More and more opportunities are afforded to women https://seejane.org/about-us/ - see downloadable impact study-
- Microfinancing for women in developing countries. Helping them to bring in incomes and to help dictate their families future. Giving these women jobs is changing how their communities act towards women with money. This is the same concept that transformed the US housewife in the 1950s. Once women having control over their own economic well being, they'll begin to see targeted ads and products focusing on them which will increase demand and increase jobs. https://www.kiva.org/about/finances/a...
- Literacy rates are improving Polio is all but eliminated. Malaria going down. And a slew of other facts that shows that the infant mortality rate is going down. Which you would think creates a population boom, but rather it leads to a population decline. Because families aren't loosing children, they can actually take care of the ones they have which means...women aren't pregnant 24/7 and are able to gain employment and have an economic future should they wish it.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed...
- little boys are allowed to show emotion. Men are finally allowed to gain custody of children in divorces. It's becoming more acceptable for guys to be virgins instead of being pressured into proving the virility. They can like/ support/ be a fan of female protagonists or artists without being told that's not manly. They don't have to pay for every date! They don't have to explain why they are a nurse without having to call it a murse or a lesser doctor. They are starting to be able to wear dresses and have more wardrobe than a shirt and pants. Because patriarchy harms all genders. Which is why I don't want it to be reversed so that we have a martiarchy that creates social rules that subjegates us again. Yeah, I might be on the better side, but I'll still being contained by social expectations.

You and I agree that women deserve and will get more. But I suppose when I agree that the future is female, I'm saying that in a couple of years there is going to be an awful lot of good news for women. We're making large successful strides at being an equal part of the conversation.

But I don't want a martiarchy. I've been through the patriarchy. I wouldn't want to put someone else through that

Pam wrote: "Jasmine wrote: "..Then why do you agree with me that the future is female if you don't agree with my reasoning? "

Thanks Jasmine. Hope this helps explain my thoughts. Let me know if you have any q..."

Pam you do not FTBA. Thoughtful, kind replies all around. I hope you're treated w the level of respect you hand out

Pam wrote: "Jasmine wrote: "..Then why do you agree with me that the future is female if you don't agree with my reasoning? "

Thanks Jasmine. Hope this helps explain my thoughts. Let me know if you have any q..."

And where in all this is the male species held accountable for the way they've subjugated women for all of history?

The notion of male leadership needs to be challenged wherever it is found. A moratorium put on male promotions etc.

Jasmine wrote: ".And where in all this is the male species held accountable for the way they've subjugated women for all of history?

The notion of male leadership needs to be challenged wherever it is found. A moratorium put on male promotions etc. "

That sounds a lot like reparation.

I'm all for justice. I'm all for putting away people who rape and pray on innocence etc.

But I'm not going to condemn a person for being born with a penis. If anything, I'm going to educate them on their responsibility and privledge that comes with being born with a penis just as if they were born in a certain country or socioeconomic level, or with a clean bill of health without disability or with a loving family or with a pet or living near a park with slides and a jungle gym

I'm sorry you feel like you're owed something. I'm sorry that you don't think you can succeed without handicapping those around you. But my baby brother doesn't owe you anything.

@winston. Thanks. We're all on the same side here. Some of us have different reasons and different goals, but we're all on the same side here at OSS. I respect that.

Great post Pam.

Pam wrote: "Jasmine wrote: ".And where in all this is the male species held accountable for the way they've subjugated women for all of history?

The notion of male leadership needs to be challenged wherever i..."

This sort of male apologist stuff is really holding the feminist movement back. You're stunting female empowerment by continuing to make excuses for maleness.

To piggyback on Meelie, how long do you foresee the male promotion moratorium lasting? Because to me, an unending ban is not reparation, it's oppression which in turn will make men the victim.

I am a parent and I want my daughter AND my son to be able to pursue their dreams. Am I supposed to treat my baby son differently because he was born a man? Because I would rather teach him to view his sister as an equal given the same opportunities and awarded successes based on merit, not on gender.

Also, where do trans fit into this matriarchal society?