Demise of the patriarchal paradigm

[snowleopard]

Given the apparent demise of the prevailing patriarchal paradigm, now beckoning an alternative mythos upon which to base a newborn collective ethos, this interview with Kavitha Chinnaiyan, author of Shakti Rising: Embracing Shadow and Light on the Goddess Path to Wholeness, may be of some interest, if so inclined ...

 

[snowleopard]

@Outer  The patriarchal paradigm is the current societal construct and ethos wherein the masculine aspect is predominantly in control. Of course it's a construct, as is any ethos. Nonetheless, any ordered collective society is based on some kind of paradigm, and they all reach a point where a shift to a new construct is inevitable, the more the individual expressions of Awareness expand within the collective. Even an 'enlightened' society would still be based on a paradigm -- it would just be recognised as a convenient construct needed to determine the rules of engagement in the realm of relational experience, as opposed to being an extension of exclusive egoic identification. In other words, the dream won't end, it's just no longer taken to be not a dream.

[AlwaysBeNice]

Pretty obvious that our world has shown less tolerance for feminine aspects, but yeah of course also, on one level there's no world and thus no patriarch).

Good examples of feminine qualities are:

Creativity, spontaneity, emotionality, craziness, expressive (love/compassion/affection)

Whereas tend to see and favor more male characteristics as in:

Coldness, calmness, rationality, dominance, self-love

[Monkey-man]

patriarchy comes from biological inclinations first of all. Female is one who becomes impregnated so they tend to enjoy surrender more and male tends to enjoy domination and responsibilities more. Can't really change anything about it. People should just embrace their hormonal structure. Otherwise this happens:

 

Edited January 25, 2018 by Monkey-man

[snowleopard]

@Mighty Mouse  For sure, it is a question of perspective. Yin and yang are equally integral, however, like an tide ebbing and flowing, there are times when one or the other dominates the cultural landscape. I'm not saying it isn't a natural phenomenon, and ultimately it balances out.  Yet the pendulum swing is inevitable. 

[snowleopard]

1 minute ago, Mighty Mouse said:

I don't buy it.

I'm not surprised

[snowleopard]

@Mighty Mouse  Well 'enlightened' is with inverted commas.  Indeed, the Divine self-perpetuating Dream has no point of origin or end, whether its characters are 'asleep' or 'awake.' 

[Leo Gura]

@snowleopard I agree with you that we are in a very strong patriarchy (and have been for the last 2000 years). But I disagree that it is ending anytime soon.

There is a very strong backlash happening right now by the patriarchy against the rise of feminism.

Look at the popularity of pickup, red pill philosophy, MOGTOW, Trumpism, nationalism, the war on terror, etc. All of that is patriarchy run wild.

It's like the patriarchy is going through its death-throes, but that will still take many decades or centuries to complete itself.

Our social institutions have a hyper-masculine quality to them.

People are scared of love, vulnerability, compassion, community, and all the other "softer" feminine qualities. Most men are really threatened by that.

Isn't it interesting that not a single mass murder in the US (which happens every week) has been committed by a woman? There is definitely a lot our society has to learn from women.

Here's a really good book on this topic: http://amzn.to/2DBYhte

[Joseph Maynor]

Great video from Emerald on point:

 

Edited January 27, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[snowleopard]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

disagree that it is ending anytime soon.

 

@Leo Gura  Yeah, it's just this intuitive perspective. I could be misreading the situation. We'll see. 

[Akim]

I think some societies are more hierarchical and male dominated. Two very stark examples among our closest relatives are chimps and bonobos. https://www.eva.mpg.de/3chimps/files/apes.htm. There are examples of more female oriented cultures among humans like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo_women

Bonobo society: "females form strong bonds and exert social dominance over the males. Groups occupy specific territories, territories can overlap, mating across community lines observed. Sex used for social bondage, pairs can include all age and sex combinations, reduction of tension, elicit social or food benefits, frequent homosexual interactions esp. in females, Used as greeting, conflict resolution."

Chimp society: "Linear set of relationships among all males. Includes a clear alpha-male specific territories, aggressive patrolling of boundaries, avoidance of neighbors. High ranking males monopolize and guard females in estrus"

I looks to me that there is some movement in bonobo direction in western society. But will it last?

[Leo Gura]

@Outer Step outside your male-dominant perspective.

The fact that women are forced to wear business suits and compete for top alpha chimp in business environments just goes to show the extent of the patriarchy.

If women ran the world, it would be a very different place. Not perfect, but certainly not the madness we commonly see today.

Yes, patriarchy stems from biology.

I have a book on my book list about the differences between chimps and bonobos. It really puts the human ape into perspective.

[Leo Gura]

I'm not saying women should rule the world.

I'm just making an observation about how the human species rules itself. It does so through alpha-male domination. It's been doing this for over 2000 years. And the values of our cultures are often defined by these dominate alpha-males, so much so that it goes unnoticed.

Women have only been able to vote for like 80 years. Think about that.

In many Middle Eastern countries women aren't even allowed to drive or open a bank account without male permission.

It's pretty fucked up. And while America is much more equal today, do you really think 2000 years of that kind of oppression has been weeded out of our collective consciousness?

[Akim]

There is a thing that female reproduction value is largely determined by her physical appearance and for males it is position in the dominance hierarchy. So men compete for dominance like their life is depending on it, because it is. Low status males will not have children. For low status females it is much easier to have children, because man can impregnate a lot of women easily. This fierce competition probably explain huge biological and psychological differences. I don't think it is just a paradigm that we can destroy quickly and build a functional and healthy society. It really reminds me of Marxism too, as Jordan Peterson says. Like people see differences in wealth between people and say, hey we don't like that reality, scrap that, we will redistribute everything, yeah some violence will probably be needed, oh look reality is more complex than we thought it doesn't work so well (to put it mildly). There is a lot of work to be done to understand how the dynamic is evolving and what can we try to do to improve society for all its members.

[Akim]

Also most stable pattern of relationship in human culture is one man with one women for life. Or one man with several women for life if there are a lot of wars and not enough men. There is probably a reason for it, why such societies outcompete others. Not just that they were stupid and we are smart and have birth control. Now as we become sexually liberated and promiscuous, everything becomes complicated. Most of the sex/children will go to the top males. We will have lots and lots of single mothers. Will this be stable? What would men who are not needed anymore do?

[sarapr]

The male domination that has existed for thousands of years has been there for good reason. Because of gender specialization which contributes to survival one gender had to be stronger physically to ensure the safety of the family and because of the harsh realities of survival in the past women had to totally rely on men so obviously women no longer had a say in anything and men became the dominent gender because their difference to women at the time was more favorable by nature but now since we don't live in that harsh of a world anymore it no longer matters as much that men are stronger so their trait is not more favorable to the degree it was in the past so now it's about favourable traits that lead to more money which is what gives men domination at this point and men are more success oriented than women so again men dominate but as we go on and societies go from stage orange to green and yellow then at that point women's trait might become more favourable and be the dominating gender which is hard to imagine a world like that so I'm not sure . The point I was trying to make was that the differences between men and women make neither of them inherently good or bad or more dominent and you can't compare those objectively and they get meaning and become good or bad or more favourable only when nature and society pick one over the other.

So the domination of men will not go away until a very radical change in humans happen collectively that leads to different values that favors women's traits more.(no time soon)

[sarapr]

16 hours ago, Outer said:

Iran 2018. Arrested.

Are you sure she's just arrested ? You can consider her dead already

[Source_Mystic]

Depends what type of woman you are talking about in the business world There were several studies done that show that woman's minds in male dominated fields changed to become more male and that there management style changed to be more aggressive dominate and forceful.

I worked for one of these woman and in fact in her job as plant manager  there was no difference in her style to that of a male. This being said I also knew her on a personal level to a degree where she was quite the opposite. So in her case I am not sure how much of it was a mask that she had to emulate to do the job or if in fact her mind changed to a more masculine style because she surrounded by men and the way thy think. I liked her as a person but I did not like that style of management.

The second woman I worked for was completely opposite she ran the business like a family and it was a awesome example of how woman can take a different approach  and be completely successful. Side note she got promoted and in two month's everyone left because her new male replacement had a hard ass forceful dominant management style that know one liked.

 I think the question is deeper still when you are talking about jobs management and such because I have known people that are complete assholes at work both men and woman but when you see them on a personal level outside of the job they are like a completely different person. I wonder how many males are  forced into a dominant aggressive management style because it is expected or demanded by the work culture.  How many would rather have a more mellow or laid back approach. 

When I was younger I worked at manufacture plant I started there as a line worker. So I  saw how everyone interrelated on that level for like a year it was ball busting work.   The line supervisors management were very aggressive.  Long story short my spleen ruptured and I was out of work and on bed rest for two month's when I was healed enough and could come back to work I still could not lift  anything heavy. They sifted my job to janitorial which was fine with me since I had experience in that as well. After 6 month's the plant manager ask me if I would like to go back to line work or stay on as head of janitorial  That choice was easy for me to make because what I had learned in that time.

I got to see every single persons demeanor change I got to see who they were inside , outside of management style and what they were forced to be like and it was insane to see the difference of so many people with their masks on  and then without it .  The person you see is not always the person you actually see  or who they even want to be.

This pealed back a layer of reality that I will never forget.

Things are not always as the appear. 

 

Edited January 28, 2018 by Source_Mystic

[snowleopard]

I can now see what Emerald meant by saying that 'patriarchy' is one of those trigger words that gets folks riled up. I suppose that the more apropos descriptor might have been to refer to a shift away from a yang-oriented paradigm. This was not meant to imply that yin is better or more preferable than yang, but rather that one can tend to be in a more emphasised aspect or phase, at any given time, and to suggest that it is the natural way of phenomenal systems to alternate between the two poles of the yang-yin dynamic. And thus, it is just this intuitive observation that the social paradigm is currently shifting from a yang orientation to a more yin-based one, while at the same time being entirely interdependent. However, the notion that this is a good or a bad thing is highly relative and subjective. I have no vested interest in prioritising or privileging or protecting either integral aspect.

Edited January 28, 2018 by snowleopard

[billiesimon]

@Leo Gura  Don't get me wrong, Leo, I love your content and your work, but I don't understand your support of toxic manipulative and dystopian feminism. You should support egalitarianism, not feminism, which is the exact counterpart of male chauvinism.

I'm a strong libertarian and egalitarian, and if you JUST look at the damages feminism is doing to men and young sons is disgusting.

Manipulating men to get married, and then rob them of all UNEARNED wealth from them. Or sending them to jail over nothing. Also teaching young boys about ONLY feminine values and hating healthy positive masculine ones (not talking about aggression, only about charisma, leadership and independence).

Feminism is the embodyment of all the worst of female nature, and is completely corrupting the NATURAL symbiosis between men and women.

Men and women should love eachother and complete themselves with they polar opposites, and cooperate. Not in a tradcon way. I'm NOT a traditionalist. I believe in self responsibilities, not in robbing men (or women) or resources and shaming them. I believe in working your ass off for yourself. 
Women should learn to be responsible and stop fucking men over. Grow the fuck up, women. Men don't want you to be submissive, we just want you to get out in the world and fend off for yourselves without suck our blood. Be free and let men be free.

Sorry for the rant, Leo, but I'm sick of this anti egalitarian shaming LOL.