Brenton
Politics Without Men? (& Guess the Little Girl)
January 7th 2008 06:47
When I performed in a play called ‘Looking 4 Redemption’ we spoke at length about Matriarchal and Patriarchal systems. Patriarchal systems were more masculine, and focussed on control and domination. Matriarchal systems were more feminine, and based on nurture and caring. It was determined pretty early on that if all countries were based on a Martiarchal system, we’d be a good deal more peaceful.
With this in mind would the world be better off with female world leaders? If so, should we legislate to ensure this manifests?
One issue is that matriarchal and patriarchal are not necessarily consistent with ‘man’ and ‘woman’ any more than say, blue and pink. A Man may be a matriarchal leader, caring for and fostering a loving environment amongst a large group. A woman may be a patriarchal leader, balls out and bloodthirsty. Ann Coutler comes to mind.
However, on the whole it seems women are more like their namesake, as are men.
This leads us to a question – would politics be better off if we had more women in positions of power? And if so, is it worthwhile or even fair to ensure that more women are entered into politics, through regulation of political process?
The idea is often expressed in American politics as Affirmative Action. The idea that through a process of what is effectively reverse discrimination, we can help others to gain higher social footing and make a real difference to the world.
There are some obvious flaws. There is the potential for a woman with limited ability to be favoured over a man with high ability. If we accept that men and women are of similar ability though, we should logically be able to find male and female candidates of equal quality.
The other thing to consider is whether politics by its very nature is Matriarchal or Patriarchal. Currently, from the over representation of men, focus on competitive business and national security, use of violence as a solution and aggressive party politics, it would seem more apparent that we are functioning in a patriarchal system. Yet if the system in and of itself is patriarchal, then the women who would manage to claw their way to the top would be as rough and violent as any of the men – a situation almost akin to putting two fighting dogs in a cage and hoping the least aggressive wins.
Ultimately I am optimistic that women will gain a stronger foothold in politics and that this will be a positive force, not simply a pack of aggressive anti social women who are simply all of mans negative traits with different chromosomes – a la Pauline Hansons Xenophobic claptrap. The chance is there – ladies; take it.
IMAGE SOURCE AND ANSWER
With this in mind would the world be better off with female world leaders? If so, should we legislate to ensure this manifests?
One issue is that matriarchal and patriarchal are not necessarily consistent with ‘man’ and ‘woman’ any more than say, blue and pink. A Man may be a matriarchal leader, caring for and fostering a loving environment amongst a large group. A woman may be a patriarchal leader, balls out and bloodthirsty. Ann Coutler comes to mind.
However, on the whole it seems women are more like their namesake, as are men.
This leads us to a question – would politics be better off if we had more women in positions of power? And if so, is it worthwhile or even fair to ensure that more women are entered into politics, through regulation of political process?
A Younger Version of a Current Female Politician
The idea is often expressed in American politics as Affirmative Action. The idea that through a process of what is effectively reverse discrimination, we can help others to gain higher social footing and make a real difference to the world.
There are some obvious flaws. There is the potential for a woman with limited ability to be favoured over a man with high ability. If we accept that men and women are of similar ability though, we should logically be able to find male and female candidates of equal quality.
The other thing to consider is whether politics by its very nature is Matriarchal or Patriarchal. Currently, from the over representation of men, focus on competitive business and national security, use of violence as a solution and aggressive party politics, it would seem more apparent that we are functioning in a patriarchal system. Yet if the system in and of itself is patriarchal, then the women who would manage to claw their way to the top would be as rough and violent as any of the men – a situation almost akin to putting two fighting dogs in a cage and hoping the least aggressive wins.
Ultimately I am optimistic that women will gain a stronger foothold in politics and that this will be a positive force, not simply a pack of aggressive anti social women who are simply all of mans negative traits with different chromosomes – a la Pauline Hansons Xenophobic claptrap. The chance is there – ladies; take it.
IMAGE SOURCE AND ANSWER
| 68 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Activist Links: (Request one)
Vitamins are criminal?
Just say Know
Could Corporate Interests Destroy The Internet as we Know it?
Comment by Anonymous
There was a recent article in the Sunday Times by Neil Lyndon, saying that instead of 'nurturing' teenage pregnancies by subsidising them through extensive benefits, we should instead withdraw the money, and that would prevent the dramatic increase that the 'nurture' form of politics has led to.
However this is a matter of opinion and only one instance, it just shows that both sides have their problems. ‘Nurturing’ by the state has led to huge taxes to pay for benefits for an increasingly lazy and dependant population.
I think bringing in the idea of sex is besides the point and it is bad idea to associate one with the other as it drags a sensible political debate into the impassioned areas of sexism. Personally I know a lot of women who want a more powerful government, and men who would like to see criminals 'nurtured' rather than punished.
Max Raleigh Smithwick
http://www.themyth.org.uk