Schrodinger's Cat is a thought experiment in quantum mechanics devised by physicist Erwin Schrodinger in 1935. It is one in which a cat can be both alive and dead at the same time due to a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics. Ergo, something that may seem like a contradiction on the surface may still be true nonetheless.
The age-old "equality of what?" debate, made most famous by Amartya Sen, is also instructive here. Is it distributional equality? Moral equality? Equality of dignity? Equality of opportunity? Equality of outcome? Equality of power? Equality of position? Equality of rights (and what kind)? Equality of responsibilities (and what kind)? Equality under the law (and in what context)? Without clarifying this, the door is opened to the aforementioned doublespeak and confusion. There are indeed multiple dimensions of equality.
And finally, here is a list of philosophical razors, which are "principles that "shave off" or eliminate unlikely explanations, helping to simplify reasoning and avoid unnecessary steps", per Dr. Google and Wikipedia:
- Occam's Razor: When faced with competing explanations for the same phenomenon, the simplest one is often the correct one.
- Hitchens's Razor: Any claim asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
- Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
- Alder's Razor: If an explanation requires more assumptions than another explanation for the same phenomenon, the explanation with fewer assumptions is preferred.
- Hume's Razor: Claims must be supported by evidence equal to their magnitude; for a large claim, large evidence is needed.
- Sagan Standard: A variation on Hitchens's Razor that states "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
- Popper's Falsifiability Principle: A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, meaning it must be possible to prove it wrong.
- Newton's Flaming Laser Sword: The principle that what can be asserted without evidence can also be destroyed without evidence.
- Grice's Razor: The principle that you should assume the speaker means what they say, avoiding over-interpretation.
- Einstein's Razor: Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.
- Hume's Guillotine: Or the "is-ought problem", is the philosophical observation by David Hume that one cannot logically derive prescriptive "ought" statements (what should be) from purely descriptive "is" statements (what is the case) without an unstated or unjustified assumption.
(There are several other such razors as well, see the complete list.)
Thus, the best answer that can be given, applying all three devices, is the following one, what I call "Schrodinger's Matriarchy": Matriarchy is both egalitarian in one sense and not egalitarian in another sense at the same time. Note that this is NOT like Orwell's famous line from Animal Farm that "everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others". Rather, this takes into account that there are multiple dimensions to the question of equality, and with Women in charge, the result will ultimately reflect Women's preferences overall. So what do Women generally prefer? As a man, I cannot actually speak directly for Women of course, but from what is known from observation, they would generally prefer a free and as close to "classless society" as humanly possible. And while there would likely still be some hierarchies (more of actualization rather than domination), they would not relish and revel in such hierarchies the way men do. It would NOT be a game of "king of the hill" like patriarchy is. While certainly Women would have more power than men overall, that is about the only thing that is certain in terms of equality or lack thereof. The rest is ultimately up to them to decide in practice. And they would know intuitively from observation that the way men have done things has been a terrible failed experiment that has backfired on men as well. Likewise, attempting to keep the same paradigm but with the genders reversed, would backfire on Women, so they would ultimately follow a fundamentally different paradigm altogether if they had their way.
As Gloria Steinem famously pointed out decades ago, men's preferred shape of society is a pyramid, while for Women, it is more of a circle (or perhaps a set of concentric circles). Men tend to think in terms of "who's up and who's down", while Women tend to think in terms of "who's in and who's out". And I believe that would still be true under a future Matriarchy, where Women rule both the family and the world.
Based on what is known from actual real-life Matriarchal societies, both historical and contemporary (and both human and otherwise too, from bonobos to lions and so on), the following concept is the most common denominator among them all, in a nutshell:
Women: more power and more responsibility
Men: less power and less responsibility
In stark contrast, under patriarchy, men largely have power without responsibility while Women largely have responsibility without power. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to see just how dangerous and toxic that dynamic is! And in "reverse patriarchy", a purely hypothetical idea that has never had any proven precedent in reality but still lives rent-free in the minds of so many fearful and benighted men (and also some benighted women who act like "men in frocks" as well), it is just the reverse, and likely just as dangerous and toxic. Whereas, in a genuine Matriarchy, power and responsibility nearly always go hand in hand proportionally to one another across the board.
As the prophet Leland Mellott once succinctly predicted, "Women will manage everything. Men will manage themselves". BINGO.
Perhaps mutuality is an altogether better concept than the vaguely-defined concepts of "equality" or (especially) "equity." It is clearly far more intuitively understood, more in line with what Women truly want, and certainly jibes much better with what the late, great Buckminster Fuller famously called the "feminine paradigm of leadership".
Ditto for the timeless and fundamental concept of the dignity of the human person, which thoroughly transcends gender, race, creed, class, ability, and any other demographic differences as well. And Women have historically been far better at recognizing and honoring such dignity, while men have been far more likely to honor it in the breach.
There are likely many such models, and many such paths to the realization of such models, of course. But whatever way is chosen in any case, it is best for it to develop organically from the bottom up. Even though it is self-evident that, at the same time, we will clearly also need Women to occupy the highest levels of power, politically and otherwise, as well for a precondition to Matriarchy achieving full fruition, acting as Guardians of Liberty as well as placeholders of such positions to prevent men from taking over again, God willing.
Let the planetary healing begin!
Now kiss the kitty above for good luck ☺️
