FAQ

Here is a list of frequently-asked questions, in no particular order, for those who are new to the idea of Matriarchy, Female Empowerment, or any of it's related ideas:

Q1)  What is Matriarchy?

A1)  Matriarchy is defined by the dictionary as 1) a system of society or government ruled by a woman or women, 2) a form of social organization in which descent and relationship are reckoned through the female line, and 3) the state of being an older, powerful woman in a family or group.  The first definition is also known as Gynarchy, literally "rule by women", and is generally the first definition most people think of.

These definitions themselves are generally not controversial.  What does become controversial is that colloquially many people (usually men) tend to define it as "the mirror image of patriarchy" and all that entails.  As a result, many folks (and even some feminists) have tended to view the idea negatively and ignorantly use the word Matriarchy as a slur.  Thus, broader definitions have been developed by people who have studied the subject extensively.  Based on the best historical and anthropological evidence, it is safe to say that Matriarchy is a fundamentally different paradigm of society compared with patriarchy, and when Ajax the Great and the True Spirit of America Party use the term Matriarchy, that is what we mean.  If we are referring to the mirror image of patriarchy, i.e. the same evil paradigm but with the genders reversed, we will call it "reverse patriarchy" or "patriarchy in drag".

Q2)  How does Matriarchy differ from patriarchy, aside from which gender is in charge?

A2)  The difference is like day and night, basically.  Practically every serious scholar who has studied the subject has concluded that the entire paradigm of society is fundamentally different.  Matriarchies tend to be more "partnership-oriented" while patriarchies are more "dominator-oriented", to borrow Riane Eisler's terminology.  Matriarchies are more peaceful, caring, and egalitarian, whereas patriarchies are more warlike, violent, and contain rigid hierarchies of domination.  Matriarchy is a circle to patriarchy's pyramid scheme.  When women rule, everyone is better off, even men.

That is not to say that there are no hierarchies or no domination at all in Matriarchy.  However, hierarchies tend to be ones of actualization rather than domination.  And while females do in effect dominate males to one degree or another, the nature of such domination is also fundamentally different than the male-style domination that we are all too familiar with under patriarchy--so different, in fact, that Riane Eisler essentially overlooks it.  Under Matriarchy, there is no tyranny or oppression of any kind, and the feminine paradigm of leadership is inherently benevolent rather than cruel and toxic.  It would ideally be a free and open society overall.  Women, in other words, have proven to be better leaders than men on average.

Q3)  How does Matriarchy differ from the Femdom scene?

A3)  The Femdom scene is basically a male-centered (androcentric) sexual fetish culture that bears little if any resemblance to actual Matriarchy, which is inherently female-centered (gynocentric).  Though the directionality of the "worship" is the same, practically any other similarities occur only in the minds of men.

Granted, there are some 24/7 "lifestylists" (usually men) who are indeed also members of the broader Matriarchy movement, but these folks are not necessarily representative of the movement as a whole.  And they would basically be practicing what William Bond calls "Female-Friendly Femdom", not androcentrism.

Q4)  How does Matriarchy differ from Feminism?

A4)  Both movements and philosophies are about female empowerment, so there is inherently a great deal of overlap between the two.  And there are many different varieties of feminism, so in some cases they become simply different degrees of the same thing.  Other varieties of feminism, however, are so dogmatically about "equality", that they fail to recognize that women make better leaders than men, and also end up inadvertently putting men on a pedestal as something that Women should aspire to become like.  The latter case is inherently inimical to the Matriarchy movement, while the former case is a great steppingstone toward its goal.  The Chalice and the Flame (and the TSAP) supports both Matriarchy and Female Empowerment in general, and thus we generally support feminism.

Q5)  Is there really any historical precedent for Matriarchy?

A5)  According to the best available evidence, the answer would be a resounding "yes".  There is much anthropological research from Marija Gimbutas, Joseph Campbell, and others backing it up, and Guru Rasa von Werder and William Bond have both written extensively about the subject.  Riane Eisler also writes extensively about such research as well, though she stops short of actually calling such societies "Matriarchal" despite the fact that Heide Gottner-Abendroth does use that term to describe those same societies.  Call it what you want, but there is plenty of precedent for it to one degree or another.  In fact, up until about 7000 years ago or so, Matriarchy was the norm around the world.  Additionally, several such societies still exist to this day, such as the Minangkabau and the Mosuo to name a few.

Q6)  What are the origins of patriarchy?  How and why did men eventually take over?

A6)  There are several theories on the matter, and all of them carry some degree of controversy.  I generally go with the Kurgan theory that Eisler discusses, derived from Gimbutas' and Campbell's anthropological research, namely that patriarchy (and the "dominator" model in general) began in a few nomadic pastoral (herding) societies in Central Asia (i.e. Kurgans or Indo-Aryans) and perhaps in the Arabian Peninsula as well.  Aggression was valued highly in such societies, which eventually led to men deposing women from power there.  These warlike societies then spread by conquering the peaceful Matriarchal societies around them, eventually spreading worldwide.  They were semi-literate nomadic sheepherders who had no real culture of their own, but the did have superior weapons technology, and gradually conquered the pre-existing matriarchies beginning about 5000-7000 years ago. As for how the Kurgans themselves became patriarchal in the first place around 7000 years ago, there are a number of theories. Originally Women were once thought to be divine, and men worshipped them, but eventually such cultures began to deify men (and the male way of doing things) instead.  We see this clearly in the gradual supplanting of the original Goddess(es) by male god(s).  Men apparently thought that they could do better as leaders than women, but clearly they were dead wrong about that. So we all got 7000 years of darkness that followed. But one day we will all look back at this as an aberration, and the #1 bumper sticker in the year 2100 would likely read, "When men ruled the world, it was called the Dark Ages". And as they say, the rest is history.  Not to say that other theories on the matter don't exist, but that seems to be the theory best supported by research to date.

One thing is for sure:  patriarchy is NOT timeless.  It has a beginning, and it has an end.  The beginning was about 7000 years ago (though it began a bit later in many parts of the world), and the end is coming very soon.  And when Women finally do take over, they with remember exactly how they were treated, so it try behooves us fellas to clean up our act yesterday!


Q7)  Why do you say that Matriarchy is inevitable?

A7)  Because it is the only way to avoid human and planetary extinction, I'm afraid.  Let's face it, us fellas have really made a mess of things, and the longer we stay in power the greater the risk of destruction from nuclear war and/or climate change.  Seriously.  Also, just take a good and honest look at the statistics.  Men themselves are falling away and falling apart as we speak.  And Women are making huge gains in practically every field, and will soon become the richer and more powerful gender.  The futurists are practically unanimous about this:  the future belongs to women.  And when they do finally take over, they will remember exactly how they were treated, so it really behooves us fellas to clean up our act yesterday.

People keep waiting for a male messiah to save them all. And they have been waiting 2000 years in vain for him to arrive. When the real messiah was there all along, albeit suppressed by men. And soon the better half of humanity--women--will reclaim their rightful place as the new leaders of the free world. As the song goes, you were the first, you'll be the last. And the past 7000 years of darkness (known as patriarchy to make it sound a bit nicer) would prove to be a mere blip and aberration in between. Unless we all go extinct in the meantime, of course, which unfortunately is a definite possibility if men remain in power for much longer.

Q8)  What will become of men after women finally take over?

A8)  That is a very good question, as it seems that the movement often comes to a lacuna at that point.  Several theories and predictions exist on the matter.  I personally believe that women will ultimately decide to take the higher road and show mercy on us fellas upon taking over.  And I have faith that our new leaders will make the right decisions.  In fact, I believe that, on balance, most men would actually be better off under Matriarchy than they have been under patriarchy, the latter of which has a nasty habit of backfiring on men.  But ultimately the onus is on us fellas to prove ourselves worthy.

Q9)  Would men become second-class citizens?

A9)  Depends on your definition of "second-class citizen".  If by that you mean that women would treat men anywhere near as horribly as men have historically done to women, then no, I believe that women are better than that.  If by that, you mean that men would be treated like the way whites have treated people of color, or the way adults have treated children and adolescents for most of history, again the answer would be no.

Of course, women would by definition have significantly more power than men, and would also be the richer gender as well.  Men would likely be barred from most if not all significant positions of power, especially political office, which would be reserved for the better half of humanity.  And at the micro-level, most male-female relationships would be female-led to one degree or another.  So men could be considered to be "second-class citizens" in that general sense, but I prefer to think of it as women being "first among equals", as Orwellian as that phrase may sound.  Because Matriarchy would be far more egalitarian in practice than patriarchy ever was or ever could be, as the latter inevitably leads to tyranny and/or oligarchy.  By contrast, women tend to prefer "power within" and "power with and through" rather than "power over", so when women are in charge, their preferred feminine paradigm would finally be put into practice.  But in order to prevent men from ever taking over again, women must occupy the "alpha" position in all areas of life.

Q10)  Would men still have individual rights?

A10)  There is some controversy within the broader Matriarchy movement on the answer to this question, but as a progressive libertarian I believe that the answer would be a resounding YES.  I and the TSAP believe that the answer to just about any social problem is more liberty rather than less.  And I would feel the same way even if I knew I was going to die tomorrow and be reincarnated as a woman.  Seriously.  Because truly no one is free when others are oppressed.  And just as surely as patriarchy currently backfires on men, "reverse patriarchy" would likewise backfire on women as well.

That's not to say that some rights shouldn't be reserved exclusively for women.  Running for political office comes to mind as the most obvious one, as does running large corporations.  (Not like most men get to do these things anyway under patriarchy, so they will not be missing very much)  And certainly males would lose the male privileges that they currently have at the expense of women, as those privileges are not actually rights, but rather "anti-rights" which are inherently cursed.  But there really is no good reason why men should lose the right to vote or any other basic civil rights and liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement, and bodily integrity/autonomy so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.  Liberty is not a zero-sum game, after all.  The more you give, the more you get.

Q11)  Would men become slaves?

A11)  If we are to define "slavery" as "owning another human being as property" and/or "involuntary servitude by force or coercion", then no.  Such an abomination is inherently inimical to the free and open society than most women would prefer to live in.  And truly no one is free when others are oppressed.

By the way, the vast majority of men (over 99%) are already slaves to one degree or another.  Slaves to the oligarchy, plutocracy, kleptocracy, and kyriarchy, that is--all of which result from the demonic patriarchy.  So smashing the patriarchy would actually result in more freedom for all rather than less. 

Q12)  Would women get revenge on men upon taking over?

A12)  I believe that women would choose to take the higher road and NOT take revenge.  Women are, after all, the superior gender, and contrary to the stereotype are far less vindictive than men.  However, us fellas really have no right to demand that they not do so, as we have 7000 years of bad karma to answer for.  As author and pundit William Bond predicts, women would choose not to take revenge against men, and men would then choose to pay off their massive karmic debt by voluntarily serving women instead.

Q13)  Is Matriarchy compatible with progressive libertarianism?

A13)  I and the TSAP believe that they are perfectly compatible, and see no reason why not.

Q14)  What is kyriarchy?

A14)  Kyriarchy, literally "rule by a lord or master", refers to the system of intersecting oppressions resulting from patriarchy, racism, classism, ableism, heterosexism, cissexism, ageism/adultism, and just about every other "-ism" out there.   All of which have patriarchy as the root cause.  And it needs to end yesterday.

As a result, both The Chalice and the Flame as well as the TSAP support intersectional feminism.

Q15)  What is the difference between the The Chalice and the Flame versus the True Spirit of America Party?

A15)  The Chalice and the Flame is a spinoff of the True Spirit of America Party.  While both support Matriarchy and female empowerment, The Chalice and the Flame is primarily dedicated to such while the TSAP is more generally about politics and the philosophy of progressive libertarianism.  There may be some things that the The Chalice and the Flame endorses that the TSAP is officially neutral on, and vice-versa.  And as one can see, the intended audiences of the two blogs are also a bit different as well.

Q16)  What's so great about women anyway?

A16)  As a wise man once said, it would take an hour just to list the chapter headings.  But to sum it up in one sentence, women are the better half of humanity and are the best allies a man could ever hope to have.  And they clearly make better leaders than men.

Q17)  But aren't there also evil women that we should be afraid of?

A17)  Evil women do exist, but fortunately they are far fewer in number than evil men.  About one in three men are hopelessly wicked (according to Guru Rasa, and also some survey research), while for women it is likely no more than 1-2%.  And it is very rare to find an evil woman that didn't have a father from hell.   Thus, the best way to defeat evil women is to empower all women, so the vast majority who are good can keep the evil ones in check.  And it is very telling that crime rates in the few contemporary Matriarchal societies in the world are not only lower for men, but even lower still for women compared with patriarchal societies.  That really says something indeed.

Q18)  Why do women tend to be better leaders than men?

A18)  Because contrary to what some believe, there are some very real natural gender differences, at least on average.  Men tend to think in terms of hierarchies--who's up, who's down--while women tend to think in terms of relationships--who's in, who's out.  Men tend to be more competitive and aggressive, even ruthless at times, while women tend to have a powerful maternal instinct that prevents them from becoming too ruthless.  Women tend to be more loving, caring, and community-minded than men, and they also tend to be more intelligent and think more holistically as well.  All of these things imply that, as a rule, women tend to be better leaders than men.  And in fact most women can be considered natural-born leaders.

Q19)  What makes you think that men would ever accept female rule?

A19)  First and foremost, men will eventually see the writing on the wall.  Women are rising while men are falling, and it is only a matter of time before there is no other alternative but to accept women as the new leaders of the free world. Especially when they learn just how much they have been ripped off by thousands of years of male rule that has been woefully inept at best, and horrific at worst.   After all, since patriarchy ultimately leads to oligarchy, most men have never really had a chance under male rule, and patriarchy has a nasty habit of backfiring on men.

Another reason is that men seem to be naturally hard-wired to worship women, as Guru Rasa and William Bond have both noted and discussed in great detail.  Ever notice how even in the most patriarchal societies, women practically never build shrines to men--it is always the reverse?  And how even when men build shrines to other men, they invariably build more for women (e.g.  there are way more shrines for Mary than for Jesus)?  In fact, before the advent of patriarchy, God was universally believed to be female, and women in general were once thought to be divine, as author Merlin Stone famously noted in 1974.   In psychology, such a tendency is known as the "women are wonderful" effect.  Because they are.  Patriarchy has done everything they could to stamp such woman-worshipping tendencies out of men, but they could not do so completely, because it is practically in our DNA to do so.  And once men have been deprogrammed from the patriarchal brainwashing, they will thus very likely accept women as their new leaders and treat them accordingly.

So eventually, men will eventually realize that they must "accept the unacceptable" and surrender to Women.  It is the only way that the 7000 year battle of the sexes will end.

Q21)  What is the relationship between patriarchy and capitalism?  Is Matriarchy compatible with capitalism?

Capitalism and patriarchy are basically joined at the hip.  While patriarchy has existed well before capitalism, capitalism cannot exist (for very long) without patriarchy.  They are driven by the same basic impulses and share a similar fundamental paradigm of "power over" (i.e. the "dominator" model).  The only real difference is the methods and objects of control--money and resources for capitalism, sexuality for patriarchy. Particularly Women's sexuality is tightly controlled, though doing so also indirectly controls men by keeping the "cost" of sexual pleasure artifically high, much like how usury and various taxes keep the cost of money and resources artifically high.  Thus, capitalism should really be called "greed patriarchy", while patriarchy should really be called "sexual capitalism" or "lust capitalism".

Both systems of course have had early and late stages, with the early ones being feudalism in the case of capitalism, and traditionalism in the case of patriarchy.  And now we are in the late and terminal stages of both systems today.

Matriarchy will ultimately lead to post-capitalism.

Q22)  You say Matriarchy is great and is the way of the future.  But what's in it for men?

A22)  First of all, I must say that is a very selfish question for any man to ask, and betrays a huge lack of empathy for Women.  Shame on you.  That said, I will defer to the wisdom of the late great Robert A. Heinlein and NOT appeal to men's better nature, since many of them clearly may not have one, and instead answer the question from a perspective of self- interest.  So here goes:

• Under Matriarchy, men will no longer be used as walking ATM machines (unless of course they actually want to be "paypigs") since Women would be the richer gender.
• Men would no longer be serfs/slaves to the oligarchy/plutocracy/kleptocracy since those things are the result of demonic patriarchy, which will become a thing of the past.
• Men would no longer be forced to participate in the giant game of "king of the hill" known as capitalism, since that is the result of patriarchy as well.
• Men and boys will no longer be oppressed by male bullies and tyrants as is currently the case.  And based on the best available evidence, Women would not oppress men.
• Racism, classism, ableism, heterosexism, and other -isms of the larger kyriarchy would diminish or cease completely, as those are the result of the demonic patriarchy as well.  And all of those evils currently affect men to a huge extent.
• The workweek would be much shorter and the social safety net much stronger.
• Poverty would be practically nonexistent under Matriarchy, and the overall cost of living would plummet as new technology is used for the greater good rather than for evil.  According to Buckminster Fuller, there are enough resources for everyone in the world to live like a millionaire, and with Women in charge such resources would no longer be hoarded or wasted the way they currently are.
• Child support, that perennial bete noire of the MRAs, FRAs, and PUAs, would eventually become obsolete and be phased out after women take over and become the richer and more powerful gender.
• Paternity fraud, another bete noire of the "manosphere", would also become a non-issue, as there would be no reason for women to do such a thing when they are the richer gender.
• Taxes (on the bottom 99%) would be much lower then they currently are once all the graft and corruption is gone, the warmongering has stopped for good, and the rich and mega-corporations finally pay their fair share (with no loopholes this time).
• Crime and violence would be far lower, for all genders, and all would benefit from that.
• The environment would be much better protected, and all would benefit from that.
• We would all be a lot healthier overall, and enjoy mutual benefit and protection.
• And last but not least, there would be far more sexual freedom (for all genders and orientations) under Matriarchy than has ever existed under patriarchy.  Yes, really.

So tell me, fellas, what is not to like about that?  Matriarchy is clearly a positive-sum game overall.  Unlike patriarchy, which is inherently a zero- or negative-sum game.  Face it, the only way to end the 7000 year old battle of the sexes is for us fellas to surrender to Women.  You know you want to.

Other questions that were not answered here may be answered in William Bond's Matriarchy FAQ blog.