Why We Need Matriarchy

 Why We Need Matriarchy

(Originally posted on the Rasa Von Werder blog)

William Bond goes to it:   Feb 1, 2026

Hi Rasa

 

I have developed my own THE BLUEPRINT FOR THE ORDER. I don’t think I’ve said much that I haven’t said before I’ve just put forward all my reasons why we need women to rule our world. Because the only way matriarchy can gain power is to convince very large numbers of people matriarchy is a great idea and start a powerful political movement. 

 

Rasa says: Not so fast. “Convince very large numbers of people matriarchy is a great idea & start a powerful political movement.” You & I have been trying to do that for 25 years in writing & myself, before that in actions {female dominance actions that challenge Patriarchy like nude beauty contests, female body building, Stripping for God & dominatrix work} & yet it hasn’t worked. Unless we get through with a best-selling book like ‘Feminine Mystique’ or have a 5 member family that agrees to work together, {Emmeline Pankhurst}, gains other followers & assaults Patriarchy with national publicity – we will not get the idea across. My books, like yours, herald Matriarchy, but the New York Times will not review my most controversial book – “The Man Whisperer” & s far I’ve not been able to get the media interested in my books – but that could readily be because I don’t have time to WORK on the MEDIA…..My health condition, no window to travel in the last years, {when I was a stripper I traveled & there contacted the media in each venue} & too busy writing & publishing to go on TV shows or even work on Podcasts is the reason.

Therefore, unless someone else does it we are unable to conince a large public toward Matriarchy – most don’t even know what it is - they are ignorant, it’s not even reached the table.

And to do as you say & then a political movement to follow would require a phenomenon such as that accomplished by Pankhurst & Betty Friedan.   Rasa

 

William continues:

 

1. Matriarchy v patriarchy is not the same as women v men.

 

We know that there are many women who see men, “through rose tinted glasses” and firmly believe men should rule the world. While at the same time there are many men who worship women and want to be ruled and dominated by them. So we cannot assume women will automatically favour matriarchy and men will favour patriarchy, it’s more complicated than that. But the truth is, the majority of people couldn’t care less if they are ruled by either men or women or a mixture of both. All they care about is if their political leaders will make their lives better. So all we need to do is to convince people they will be better off, if they are ruled by matriarchal governments. And we must make it clear matriarchy, means a government of only women.

 

          Rasa says:  OK, interesting thought. People don’t care who rules, male or female, as long as they make their lives better.  But it’s more complicated than that you say & I agree. There are many questions here. How is it that it’s not the same as women vs men? In general, the gender war is men & women. But there are partisans both ways, women pro men, men pro women. You & Pete are pro women. So that can be discussed. When we were on Face book some females jumped up attacking you, William, & claiming to be Matriarchs & superior to men – but they were not. I told them you were more of a Matriarch than they were.

Another issue is women in general do not have a high opinion of the female – themselves included. They actually believe men to be more competent & effective as leaders. I have seen this so many times on the microcosm, it is sickening. But the truth is, men have been trained to see themselves as the leader – the dominant, so they act the role. You can’t put much confidence in a woman who‘s afraid – that’s the problem. They’ve been squashed down, beaten, demoralized so long they lack the confidence of men & so in effect, sometimes they CAN’T lead. It takes a confident, assertive person to lead. And so many times because women aren’t assertive or aggressive, no confidence is placed in them - they are not given a chance. There’s a lot of WORK that has to be done to BOOST women up before they can be the Goddesses they once were. They’ve been bred ‘down,’ men have been ‘bred up’ as far as being top dog. This is a BIG discussion. People assume men were as they are for say hundreds of thousands of years, ditto women. But they have both EVOLVED ; CHANGED & some of the traits of both genders have to CHANGE AGAIN before we can succeed with Matriarchy. To wit, males have to become less aggressive, females moreso.There is another BIG factor – the extinction of males. Dr. Bryan Sykes ssays 100k years, give or take 25k. But meanwhile, we have to life with them as they diminish. The shrinkage of men will help usher in Matriarchy of course. That is the ultimate solution not conjured my humans, but supernaturally or naturally produced by Mother Nature. Dr. Bryan Sykes said “human males were an experiment that did not work & so Nature is removing them” {words not exact} Wow – did he say a mouthful - mistake indeed! And he quoted some cases to prove how insane men are, & also re their nature, how they do al they do to acquire women His book “Adam’s Curse – A Future without Men” has a lot ot say.

From the Internet:

 

“In his 2003 book, Adam’s Curse: A Future Without Men, Oxford professor and geneticist Dr. Bryan Sykes argued that human males are a genetic "experiment" that is failing due to the rapid decay of the Y chromosome, leading to an eventual, natural extinction. 

Based on his research, here are the key points of his argument:

·                                 The Failed Experiment: Sykes described the male of the species as a "genetic parasite" and a "long-running,, GM (genetically modified) experiment" that is not working out well. He cited the "raging beast" of the Y chromosome as being linked to aggression, violence, and destruction.

·                                 Decaying Y Chromosome: Sykes argued that unlike other chromosomes, the male Y chromosome is incapable of repairing itself through genetic recombination (crossing over). He called the Y chromosome a "graveyard of rotting genes" that is "pitilessly shrinking".

·                                 The 125,000-Year Timeline: Based on current rates of mutation and declining sperm counts, Sykes predicted that the Y chromosome will become completely extinct in about 125,000 years, rendering men extinct.

·                                 "Nature" Removing Them: Sykes suggested a "harsh Darwinian struggle" where female mitochondrial DNA may be actively working against male reproduction, such as by killing male fetuses. He noted that as the Y chromosome fades, reproduction could shift to a "unisex" model, similar to how some animals reproduce without males.”  {end Rasa says}

 

 

William Bond continues:

 

2. Why Patriarchy rule has been a disaster for everyone on the planet. 

 

Men and women are different because women give birth to children and men don’t. And it’s because of this that women are controlled by the feminine instinct and men are controlled by the masculine instinct. The feminine instinct makes women want to give birth to children and then care and nourish her children until they are able to look after themselves. On the other hand, the masculine instinct is all about aggression and competition. We see this clearly in nature where every year animals like stags, bulls, rams and lions fight each other for dominance and access to females. 

 

This problem is that male humans have similar instincts. Men will compete and fight each other. This is not a big problem if men fight each other in a boxing ring or compete in sporting games but it became a big problem when very competitive men gain political power. So testosterone driven leaders are willing to fight other testosterone driven leaders on the battle field causing deaths and suffering of thousand or even millions of people. (like we have seen in WW1 and WW2). 

 

Also very competitive minded people do not care about fairness. As the result we see a huge gap between rich and poor in nearly all patriarchal countries. Competitive men have a, “the winner takes it all” mentality. To them, life is a competitive game where the winners take everything and the losers get nothing. The problem is that in the patriarchal system, the most aggressive and competitive minded people far more likely to end up in leadership positions. But these types of people are far more likely to want to go to war, and not care about poverty in their own countries as they regard poor people as “losers”. This is why there is a huge gap between rich and poor and why there is poverty and homelessness even in wealthy countries. 

 

          Rasa says:  In other words, males have no love – It’s been bread out of them. Women wanted tough, aggressive men to protect them & do hard work like a combination of pit bull, Cane Corso & Shire horse. So they evolved as these were the type of men they bred with. But in acquiring traits where they could KILL readily, hurt easily with no remorse, these characters eventually stopped caring about women. They wanted to control women, like Satan wanted to be equal to God. And there you have the birth of Patriarchy.

What is love? Caring about others. They could not be both at the same time – nurturing & killing. Why am I the only one to see this? Breed someone to be a certain way, they might not be other ways that are opposite.

 

          About dogs from the Internet:

The Turkish Kangal and the Caucasian Shepherd (Ovcharka) are widely considered the toughest, most aggressive, and capable dogs to kill a wolf and stand their ground against a bear. These livestock guardian breeds are specifically bred for fearlessness, possessing massive size (up to 170 lbs) and immense bite force, often protecting flocks from wolves and bears without retreating. 

·                                 Turkish Kangal: Known for having the strongest bite in the world, they are exceptionally effective at neutralizing wolf threats and are feared by predators.

·                                 Caucasian Shepherd (Ovcharka): Renowned for their extreme aggression and thick, protective coat, they are capable of taking on wolves and large predators.

·                                 Central Asian Shepherd (Alabai): A highly protective, strong, and brave breed that excels at fighting off wolves.

·                                 Karakachan Dog: An ancient, courageous breed often used in the mountains to protect livestock from wolves. 

These dogs are specialized guardians, often standing their ground against large predators rather than fleeing.

 

          Rasa continues: Some dogs are NOT suited for family life – they are better in the fields. From the Internet:

 

·                                 Anatolian Shepherd: Known for extreme independence and alertness, they often require vast, open spaces and a "flock" to protect.

·                                 Great Pyrenees: Specifically bred to live with sheep or other livestock, they are intensely protective and may be too aloof or territorial to thrive as a standard indoor pet.

·                                 Other Working Breeds: While not strictly "only" for work, breeds like the Border Collie (for herding) or Maremma Sheepdog often require immense stimulation and space to avoid becoming stressed in a sedentary home environment. 

These dogs are bred to be independent thinkers, often acting on instinct to defend, rather than following commands like a typical companion dog.  {end Internet} 

          Rasa continues:  My theory which is mine & mine alone, is that women chose certain men for partners which eventually led to A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE of them becoming toxic.  In general they are most – not all– less ‘caring’ than women, less nurturing. There are exceptions to everything. Look at Jesus. One of the complaints I’ve heard women voicing is ‘they are like machines.’ Stalin yearned to create an army of male robots who were like that – hopefully it never happens although as William points out they are so obedient they obey unto death when the commanders tell them to do so.  Rasa

 

William Bond goes on:

3. Why matriarchy is better than patriarchy.

 

As previously stated men and women are different because women give birth and men don’t. Woman have what is called the maternal instinct. This instinct drive women to want to have children and when her child is born to want to nurture and care for it until it’s able to look after itself. But this instinct drives women to go further than this. They we also care for the children of other women, they will also care for the sick and elderly and this is why the caring professions are dominated by women. Women also care deeply for animals as well. 

 

So in theory the world would be a better place if its ruled by caring women driven by their maternal instincts. But unfortunately life is far more complicated than that. As previously pointed out, the problem with patriarchy is that the more aggressive and competitive minded people end up in positions of power. But when women got involved in politics in the 20th century then we also find that the most aggressive and competitive minded women also get into positions of power. Well known examples of this are women like Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi and Angela Merkel. Unfortunately, although these were very competent leaders none of them demonstrated they were caring women and ruled exactly the same as what a male leader would do. 

 

The reason for this is any women becoming part of a patriarchal political system has to demonstrate she is, “one of the boys”, if she has any political ambition. So she has to squash any maternal instincts she has and prove she is as ruthless and devious as any male politician. This then is why we need matriarchal political parties where women are encouraged to demonstrate their caring and maternal instincts. So women can get into positions of power within the party by not being ruthless, devious and aggressive, but by simply demonstrating they are intelligent, caring and loving people. 

 

Patriarchy likes to claim that, “love is a weakness”, and this is true within the very ruthless, Machiavellian games of patriarchal politics. But love becomes a very potent weapon when used by a matriarchal political party. The point is that the people want to be ruled by rulers who care about the people they rule. They do not want to be ruled by men who start wars with other countries and only serve the needs of wealthy men who bribe them to do their bidding. So a matriarchal party can win great support from the public by positioning themselves as a party of loving, caring and incorruptible women. 

 

          Rasa says:  I think we agree that Matriarchy is a slow process to develop. We don’t have it yet. And so some of the women who move up will be shysters, liars, hypocrites & generally exactly like the evil men. Women are murderers to but not as many as men. And so, after a long time, when women have gained a strong foothold, these evil types will not get ahead so easily. We do know that women in general are psychic & have ESP. And they have dreams & visions, like I have. So at that time when more than half the goverments are women, the women that come forward are less likely to fool the pubic & become liars & criminals. Of course, in this Patriarchal world as it is now, when a woman becomes Commander in Chief, she’ll have to deploy troops for war – she cannot be a pacifist if the country is in danger.  Rasa

OK Ladies, Do You REALLY Want To Know How To Control Men? Here Are The Cheat Codes (Updated)

One of the most vexing questions facing Women in both the Feminist and Matriarchy movements is, how to keep men from taking over once again when they are no longer in power?  The prevailing view that men are inherently dangerous and always will be, and thus will need to be controlled somehow or else they will inevitably run amuck, is not one that can simply be handwaved or wished away.  The problem has a name, and its name is MUTINY.  So how do you do it?  Psychology has an answer.

As a man myself, here I share the three, albeit very counterintuitive, "cheat codes":

1.  Men need to THINK that they are free, regardless of whether they actually are. (Ideally, everyone would be free.)

2.  NO taxation without representation. 

3.  Bread and circuses galore (see meme above).

All three should become very obvious to any serious student of history, and all three need to be maintained in perpetuity in order for it to work.

The first one can be seen throughout recorded history.  It's self-evident and self-explanatory.  Google "they thought they were free" to see the darker side of it, of course.  But that darker side has really only been seen with men in charge, that is, with men using it to control other men along with the Women.  Either way, it works, for good or ill, for better or worse.

In other words, men would need to have JUST enough freedom to think they are free.  And while Women would have suzerainty over men under Matriarchy, both Women and men would need to be treated as sovereign individuals over their own bodies and minds.  Anything less would be unethical and uncivilized. 

The second one has also been seen repeatedly to one degree or another, and not just because it's catchy and it rhymes.  Rather, the LACK of it is what often leads to mutiny, especially when combined with desperation.  From the American Revolution to the French Revolution and so on, it has happened before and will happen again if and when the circumstances are right.  But as long as men think they are being represented, and that they are getting something in return for their tax dollars, they will be willing to pay fairly high taxes, as we see in the Nordic countries (where taxes are very high, are collected simply and relatively painlessly, and they get very robust social welfare states in return, with very little to no poverty).  And even in some indigenous Matriarchal societies past and present, most famously the Iroquois, they have men as (puppet figurehead) "chiefs" to give at least the illusory perception of male representation, and they are all hired and fired by the Women elders.  (Hey, as long as men are not in any positions of real power, why not?)

That said, too many male puppet figurehead "chiefs" or representatives can potentially be a problem simply by sheer strength in numbers, so unless one lives in an indigenous culture that has been doing it for literally centuries or more, having all or most representatives being male has the risk of backfiring.  For everyone else, aim for at least a majority of representatives being Women.

Again, for men, perception is everything.  While I once thought it would be a good idea to openly tax men at higher rates than Women, I realize now that would be a much too vulgar display of power that would shatter such a perception.  Theory collides with reality.  Best to tax both primary genders equally, at least for the non-rich, but to distribute the benefits more heavily towards Women, especially Mothers.  Either way, the NET result is effectively the same over the lifecycle.

Basically, if you want to tax men, let them vote as well.  And if you want to ban men from voting, they should be exempt from taxes.  Your choice, ladies.

The third one is so obvious that one may overlook it, but it is true nonetheless.  From most famously in the Roman Empire in reality to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World in science fiction, one of the most effective and time-tested ways to prevent revolts or mutinies is cheap and readily available entertainment plus some form of dole.  And that only becomes more urgent in an increasingly high-tech and automated society where men become increasingly redundant.  In the 21st century and beyond, that can take the form of Universal Basic Income (UBI), single-payer Medicare For All, free college, and related ideas, as well as the emerging trend for the many dead and dying shopping malls to be converted primarily to entertainment centers for everyone.  In fact, in the wake of the ongoing "retail apocalypse", any currently successful mall has become at least partially if not largely entertainment-based these days (see for example:  The Mall of America in Minnesota, the West Edmonton Mall in Alberta, Canada, the new American Dream mall and entertainment complex in East Rutherford, NJ, and even smaller ones like the Palisades Center in West Nyack, NY).  

(About that last bit, I recall that the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder had mentioned something like that in The Future of Male-Female Relationships, Part I.)

Note also that malls are among the safest public places in existence, not least because there are by design generally more Women than men present overall, avoiding the whole "too many roosters" problem.  See also the "panopticon" effect.

On a related note, in a world where in the not too distant future, Women become the richer gender, and inheritances eventually become largely (if not entirely) Matrilineal, it will eventually get to the point where the only rich men left will be lottery winners.  So keeping some form of lottery in existence (hopefully with somewhat better odds than currently!) would be a form of noblesse oblige for Women to allow for the increasingly redundant gender, that will keep the fellas somewhat motivated, I guess.

(Who needs a "man tax" when you have the "idiot tax"?  Also known as the lottery.)

And of course, as Rasa has noted before, even building the modern day version of the Coliseum still would not hold a candle to the very biggest perk for men under Matriarchy:  the fact that when Women achieve complete sexual freedom as well as reaching the peak of happiness, men will very obviously benefit from that as well.

In other words, proactively create a society where rebellion is unthinkable, unprofitable, uncool, and impolitic in the first place, and there will be little or no need to reactively put down any kind of revolts or mutinies.  It will not work on 100% of men, of course, but it will most certainly work on at least 80-90% of them, on both a small and a large scale, and those few "mavericks" and rogues who remain impervious to such control would be greatly outnumbered and outgunned, and thus rendered relatively nugatory, God willing. 

This is NOT to say that it should be all carrot and no stick, of course!  Granted, a combination of both to some degree is probably necessary.  Sometimes a Lysistrata-style sex strike may be in order as a sort of "nuclear option", as the Iroquois and others had indeed done from time to time.  And it should also go without saying that individuals need to be held fully accountable for their own actions, and there should be absolutely ZERO tolerance for male violence against Women and children, period.  But cynical as it sounds (pun intended), comfort truly is the ultimate cage when you really think about it, hence why the ancient Stoic philosophers famously had such a strong dislike for staying in their comfort zones. 

In contrast, other cliched and half-baked ideas such as Femdom (at least of the popular androcentric variety), bonoboism (or rather, faux-noboism), various forms of lifestylism, etc. simply don't SCALE very well.  In fact, anything that falls into the trap of androcentrism (that is, centering males) as opposed to gynocentrism, is essentially guaranteed to fail in practice. Though we can, and should, still take a good amount of inspiration from our bonobo cousins all the same.

And finally, while males clearly do NOT belong at the center of society, as that would be androcentrism, one should note that all successful Matriarchal societies past and present (both human and otherwise) are also just as careful NOT to marginalize males TOO much either, lest they ultimately form their own insular and dangerous subculture (think the equivalent of the "alt-right", neo-nazis, KKK, MRA, PUA, MGTOW, incels, tradcons, 4chan, 8chan, and worse), to the utter net detriment of all concerned.  It is a very fine line and a very delicate balancing act, to say the least.

To be continued.....

Let the planetary healing begin!