Will women be happy with a matriarchal society, opposite to what we are now in?

As another post said, women aren't looking to dominate the world. They want equality that's all. They want to be known by their name, not husbands. They want to move in to a new house & start a new life together after marriage not embrace husbands life while abandoning her own life.

Why can't family structure stay stable if the wife doesn't take husbands name or stays home or moves in to his house or listens to his command? The family can still survive without any of those

 

the key word is 'dominate'. why? that kins of imbalance leads to disharmony and lack of balance. it kind of worked earlier because women had far less acceptable alternatives within their marriages and in society in a larger context.

 

Men and women I believe are complementary to each other. It's not about equality. Also I think it should not be a "matriarchy" as such but a combination of much of the positives of both patriarchy and matriarchy. Here there will no scope for "domination" by either sex as their roles will be well defined by the complementary nature of gender.

Our discussion here must be directed solely towards the possibilities of achieving such an egalitarian society.

Assume for a moment that people for obvious reasons (including those mentioned by OP) have lost interest in getting married; what then?

My feeling is that semblances of a matriarchal society will emerge where men (other than fathers) too will play a proactive role. So we will have to call this new community by a different name. Let's call it the "EC" or egalitarian community for this discussion purposes.

There will be regulations (call it customs) that will make identification of the father easy (and in case of doubt, the DNA test is always available only if absolutely needed).

On the whole the full potential of women will be fairly realized in this "EC". It is definitely bound to make women happier and more in charge of themselves.

Also look up: The Women's Kingdom

The idea of an EC is not far-fetched and must be allowed to develop.

 

When you said,"It is not the question of who dominates whom, or who equals whom, it is about complemeting each other"....... I dunno who u are, but i am your fan!!for this sort of understanding. I too agree that it is nature laws first. Superb understanding u have. And may all others mature to this thought, rather than fighting who equals whom, or who dominates whom.

I also want to add one more point that, E.C will never be possible because of 2 reasons,
1) Complementing each other is the only possible thing, because when nature makes something it defines that with its own laws. And men and women perfectly complement each other.

2) The Strengths that a women gets from nature, can never be attained by men. Because natures laws can never be overwritten. Likewise the qualities that men get from natures's definition can never be acquired by women. And so men are men and women are women. Example, biologically women can do more multitasking, because by nature it is defined that , both right and left hemispheres work during their tasks. This is absent for men. So if we men try to equal women in multitasking and blame ourselves, it will be our foolishness.

So we both i mean both men and women, should be happy about the similarities in hundreds of aspects, and curious or even more happy of the differences in the way we function differently, but not fight over it.

Your own left arm palm can never be equal to right arm palm. But both have their most important function right. So to argue who is equal or who is not, is to actually show either ignorance or arrogance towards nature's defined ways.

Hope we both are on same page...correct?

 

Eee, kosu and mosuo