Can Female Power Save the Planet - answered by William Bond
(Comments by Rasa Von Werder and Ajax the Great)
Anyone who studies history will notice a familiar pattern, countries will try to solve disputes between them through warfare and sometimes even genocide. Another common theme is that in all countries there is a large gap between rich and poor. Where most of the wealth of any country is in the hands of a small ruling elite while the majority of people are poor and powerless.
This is so commonplace that people have accepted it as normal but many famous people have spoken out against wars, like Mahatma Gandhi, Oscar Wilde, John Lennon, Martin Luther King, Jr., Aldous Huxley, Leo Tolstoy, William Penn, Dalai Lama and Albert Einstein.
But we don’t need to be as intelligent as Einstein to work out that warfare is a terrible idea. Modern warfare is even worse than in the past because more civilians die in modern wars than soldiers die on the battlefield. This is because in recent wars towns and cities are bombed from aircraft, killing women, children and old people. There is also the threat of nuclear weapons and the possible annihilation of civilisation. Yet in spite of this we still continue to have as many wars as we did centuries ago.
There is also the problem of a vast gap between rich and poor where a small ruling elite has all the wealth and power and the common people are poor and powerless. Yet even when the people have had a revolution and the ruling elite were killed, like we see in the French and Russian revolutions. The new revolutionary governments have proven not to be any better than those they replaced, as the gap between rich and poor has continued as before.
So why are problems like warfare and social justice insolvable? The common explanation is found in Darwin’s theory of evolution which is summed up in the phrase, “the survival of the fittest”. This comes from the observation of rutting males who fight each other to breed with females and so only the biggest, strongest and most aggressive males are able to do this. So the theory of evolution is only seen from the masculine point of view.
Darwin’s evolutionary theory was later turned into something called Social Darwinism which neatly explained why we always have wars and genocide and why there is such a wide gap between rich and poor. It seems that we have wars because like rutting males it is ‘natural’ for male rulers to fight each other for more wealth, power and territory. The same is true for class inequality, according to this theory, wealthy people are simply ‘fitter’ than poor people as they are cleverer and more capable and this is why they have more wealth and power.
{Rasa says: There’s another obscenity afoot. On Trinity Broadcasting, the Protestant venue, many of its preachers claim that ‘God wants us to have prosperity’ & to add insult to injury they say that those who gain the move money are favored by God, those who haven’t got it were not so. This is grossly wrong – this is supposed to be a Christian Network – Jesus came to earth to teach poverty, sacrifice & love for others, not greed, wealth, money changing schemes & the like. He did not hobnob with the rich, he ate with the poor & fraternized by those who were outcasts in society. }
{Ajax says: These modern-day Pharisees have it completely backwards, basically.}
To quote Wikipedia on Social Darwinism.-
“Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism, while others, emphasizing struggle between national or racial groups, support authoritarianism, conservativism, right-wing politics, eugenics, racism, sexism, homophobia, imperialism and/or fascism.”
Social Darwinism got itself a bad name through it’s promotion of eugenics. Where its proponents called for disabled children to be aborted, killed or sterilised so they wouldn’t pass on their defective genes to the next generation. This concept was adopted by Nazi Germany who used these ideas not only justify war, but also the Holocaust to eliminate Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and anyone else the Nazi’s didn’t like. After the defeat of the Nazis in Second World War, very few people wanted to be associated with these ideas.
{Ajax says: It turns out that even Darwin himself did NOT believe in "Social Darwinism" as it were. And he actually opposed eugenics, the selective breeding of human beings which is literally the opposite of natural selection, even though his cousin Francis Galton supported it. To quote Darwin, "If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin". Very true indeed.}
But Darwinism still continue to change into more extreme ideas like the Killer Ape Hypothesis, which claimed that man evolve from ape to human by becoming a hunter and killer. Again this is used to justify war, violence and social inequality.
Another idea like this is the, Selfish Gene Theory, which claims that genes, selfishly only care for their own survival and it is these selfish genes that will survive and reproduce. So according to this theory it is selfish genes that dictate the direction of evolution. So this is why we have warfare and social injustice because we are all selfish and only care about ourselves. Although Richard Dawkins who invented the, Selfish Gene Theory, has never talked about eugenics he created a controversy when he publicly claimed that it was “immoral” for mothers to bring Down’s Syndrome children into the world.
{Ajax says: Soft eugenics, basically.}
All these theories are invented by men and because of this, they leave out the female point of view. Anyone who studies female animals find that they are not driven by aggression or selfishness. Most females have a powerful desire to give birth and then care for their young until they are big enough to look after themselves. The ability of mothers to be able to do this, means she is the most important entity in the evolution of any species. This is because the role of males in reproduction is generally very brief and can be over in a minute. But life is created within the bodies of females and for human females this can take nine months.
Females have to be very fit and healthy to be able to allow an infant to grow inside their bodies. Then she has to give birth, protect and suckle the infant(s) and and look after them until they grow to be adults. Some male animals like birds do play a role is feeding and caring for their young. But many male animals go off and leave the female to fend for herself. Some species like bears and tigers the male will even attack and eat the cubs, if the female is unable to fight them off. Some mother bears and tigers end up being killed by the males when doing this.
Mothers are totally selfless in caring for her young and put their needs before her own. We find in human females, women will not only care for their own young but care for the young of other mothers. They will also care for the sick and elderly. Richard Dawkins in his book “The Selfish Gene”, realised that caring mother was undermining this theory that we are all selfish and so changed the name of caring mothers to that of ‘bearers’. As he knew the caring aspect of women will undermine his theory.
{Rasa says: I despised Richard Dawkins, & here is proof he deserved it. Such a book is truly evil & for him to call women ‘bearers’ instead of Mothers goes back to the ancient Greek play ‘Oedipus’ where the author said the woman is not the mother of the child, but only an oven the child is baked in, in so many words. It was only the man’s part that counted. And of course, science has proven this to be absurd, as men cannot even reproduce, scientists say the are ‘parasites’ on the body of a woman & can only give her their DNA to reproduce.}
{Ajax says: Indeed. The only good thing about Richard Dawkins is the fact that that he coined the popular word "meme". Yes, that was him. That's it. Big whoop!}
There have been many cases where animal females in the wild will care for the young of other mothers and even the young of other species. This is true of cuckoos who take advantage of maternal instincts of other female birds to trick them into unwittingly raising cuckoos chicks. This is also documented in many cases of feral children. These are children who have been abandoned and left in the wild and have been brought up by female animals who have found them. In most cases it is wolves or dogs but there are cases of feral children being brought up by monkeys, bears, sheep, cattle and in one case, even ostriches.
{Rasa says: I would like to see where I can witness this. Is any of it on You tube?}
As Evolutionists tell us, men have a powerful competitive and aggressive instincts and this is why we have wars, genocide and social injustice. Women on the other hand have a powerful maternal and nurturing instinct. So therefore if we want to eliminate wars and social injustice then the solution is obvious, we have to allow women to rule the world.
The argument against this is that there have been many cases where female leaders of countries have gone to war. This is true, but in most cases she is the lone female leader in a all male patriarchal government and is forced to defend her country against an aggressive patriarchal government. There has never been a case of an all female matriarchal government fighting another matriarchal government.- Though it has to be admitted knowledge of matriarchal governments have been suppressed in patriarchal history books, so we don’t have any knowledge of this.
As feminists discovered in the 20th century when they tried to get their male children to play with dolls and their female children to play with toy, cars, planes and guns it didn’t work. Women don’t have the same interest in war, guns and violence as men do. So matriarchal governments are far more likely to talk over any dispute with other matriarchal governments.
The same is also true about the gap between rich and poor. As mentioned before, women care a lot about children and therefore a matriarchal government wouldn’t want the children of the country they rule to live in poverty and ignorance. So they will do their best to lift all children out of poverty and in so doing will also help the children’s parents, as well as making sure all children have the best education. So any matriarchal government will care far more about the people they rule, than any patriarchal governments.
Women ruling the world can save us form nuclear warfare. Even though it is obvious that making nuclear weapons and using them to threaten other countries is a really bad idea - Patriarchal countries continue to do this and are unable to find a peaceful solution. This is because of men’s aggressive and competitive instincts. But if women did rule the world then they would see the stupidity of nuclear weapons and work together to disarm.
Another argument against women ruling world is that if we assume women are less aggressive and competitive than men, then it is less likely that women will ever get into a position where they can rule the world. This is true when men take control of countries either through a violent revolution or by conquest. A matriarchal government is possible in democratic countries so a matriarchal political party can be voted into power.
The advantage of a matriarchal political party, as opposed to feminism, is that it can tell voters why women would be better rulers than men - Putting forward all the arguments explained in this article. And if a matriarchal government does get into power, to stay in power it has to do the things it claims it is and demonstrate that they are caring rulers. So matriarchy is the means of getting caring people into positions of power.
Ajax says: Amen to that! The only real solution is for Women, the better half of humanity, to reclaim their rightful place as the new leaders of the free world, God willing.
