While academics and popular opinion disputes the historical validity of a true matriarchal society, modern facts confirm the present day existence of matrifocal societies and supports the likelihood that while prehistoric societies may not have been true matriarchies, they were most likely matrifocal and egalitarian. The dispute between a matriarchal prehistory and a matrifocal one, however, is merely a continuance of the patriarchal imperative to maintain strict authoritarian dominance over cultural development and social rule.

It comes as no surprise then that the patriarchal religions that have survived unto this day, such as Judaism and Islam, counts the beginning of the creation of Man at around 4000 BCE and that this approximate date coincides with the postulated downfall of the prehistoric societies and the rise of civilization. Further, the assumption that because prehistoric matriarchal societies have not be shown to exist that the contributions to the rise of civilization rests squarely with the rise of a pure patriarchy is merely an extension of the same mind set which ordered the creation of Man at 4000 BCE. Its erroneous and bigoted. The matrifocal and egalitarian societies of prehistory contributed much to the foundations of civilization. In fact, those societies which evolved during the long epochs before 'civilization' are the birth and infancy of humanity.

With the rise of secular and religious humanism ('officially' recognized as having its roots in early western philosophy but, in reality, the seed had been planted long before in the prehistoric egalitarian societies....more patriarchal nonsense, imo), humankind struggled to throw off the brutality of pure patriarchy (an example of which can be seen in Islamic theocracies) and move toward a more enlightened age wherein the dignity and human rights of all people were affirmed as innate and inviolable. Democracy is the political counterpart of humanist philosophy. However, democracy will never be possible whilst society remains ethnocentric and gender-centric. Both myopic views are incompatible with humanist ideals...including democracy. So long as society, social rule and institutions remain ethnocentric and gender-centric, the practical applications of humanist ideals...such as democracy, freedom, unity, human rights, peaceful co-existence, etc...remain impossible.

So what you are saying is we need more women running things in this nation, and around the world.

So perhaps a women president would be a step in the right direction.

I can get behind that.

I think she's pointing out the obvious. The obvious that universal peace, freedom, human rights, democracy, etc., etc. can't stand forever because something will just come and change it. Atleast that's what I pick up.

lol No, actually I'm saying that society can not 'unite' unless it first dissolves its differences...a shift toward a matriarchal society would be no more beneficial than a patriarchal one. We seem to have the greatest difficulty in acknowledging diversity...be it ethnic or gender...while disavowing the differences that separate us. Diversity could bring us closer together if those differences were not viewed as inequalities among us. Additionally, acknowledging diversity should not compel us, as it presently does, to tolerate cultural practices or beliefs which are, themselves, ethnocentric or gender-centric. That is equivalent to 'cutting off the nose to spite the face'. Its ignorance in the extreme. And as we seem to be infected with ignorance in the extreme..to the very core of our society...does it not appear, then, that peace and unity is impossible?

If you get the right person in charge, you can get a white-supremist, or even an African hater, and an African to be peacefull and fair. It might be just them acting, but it's better than them trying to kill each other all the time. And, eventually they'll work together to get rid of the guy in charge and find out that they aren't so different.

We have had difference's for millions of years...I.m.o. it will be a few million more before we could even think of forgetting them.....

So i agree with your title TuTu peace and Unity is not possible....

Perhaps its not that we should forget them, Fen..but that we should change how we think of them..that they should not be considered inequalities in any respect. Does sex, color, language, nationality, etc..make us any less human? Man should not rule...whites should not rule...wealth should not rule...humans should rule. But, unfortunately, we are too caught up in that which differentiates us...one from another...than that which binds us together.

I think that 's so true tutu, and it won't change anytime soon.:shrug:

No, it wont, Darla...and I think, partially, that this tribal mentality..this survival of the fittest and subjugation of the weakest...is a biologically driven mentality bred into us...so no, it wont change until humans use their innate reason to overcome their more base natures...it wont come until...and if ever..we rise above the ignorant and brutal nature that we have cultivated over the span of our history.

I'm not advocating it or saying it is a solution, but the Bahai faith conveys such a message of unity while embracing diversity. Nonetheless it is a religion so it probably will not do much to unite people.

I often think that one way we can start moving away from racial classifications is not to use them in every day life. For example, look at employment forms, although it is said for statistical/demographic purposes they have those check race boxes, as well, circle one M/F.

School applications have the same thing.

Why don't we do away with those boxes? :shrug:

That's a good question and a great point, BG. In places where patriarchy reigns supreme...the ethnocentric and gender-centric attributes are easily identified...its not so easy in Western society, however...its often subtle..but its there...always. How do we identify and root them out? Just as you did. By stripping them of their facade..in your example its the 'statistical/demographical purposes'...

united we fall, divided we stand.

peace is not possible....once we achieve it, its meaning will once again shift to something that is unreachable....

I shake my head at some of those employment forms BG - I've seen boxes for ethnic group include a) Caucasion Black - Afro Carribean c) Black - African d) Indian.......

'Indian' is not a race or ethnic origin (in terms of race) - in fact on most employment forms, I can usually find at least one ethnic group which is not an ethnic group at all....it's a nationality.

Sorry if I digress.

Ben

wait your right though. no digression there. in reality there are only three "races" of the Human species. Mongoloid, Caucasian, and Negroid. anything else is ethnicity / national origin. all ethnicities stem from those three.

i usually mark 'other' ... meaning HUMAN.

(hahaha so that makes one wonder what it is they put in food products labeled as "other"... "soilent green is Other!")

peace and unity are possible, but not without a unifying factor. apparently goodwill just ain't gonna cut it.

"Soilent green is people!"

Sorry, couldn't resist...=)

No.

It seems it would be: Divided we fall, united we fall.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I however do believe it is possible to have unity and peace.

If it is not.

Than humanity is indeed DOOMED.

No.

(there how did that feel?)

there is no definitive 'yes' or 'no' answer.

without diversity we are equally doomed. without individualism Humanity will cease to be Human.

the universe is born of conflict, violent action and reaction. peace is not a universal theme but can be achieved by humanity. there will always be a greater hurdle to overcome without the distractions of getting in each other's way. however those hurdles will never be overcame until we learn that at some base level we are already unified, like it or not. Humans all have at least one thing in common and that is Humanity. that is a unifying factor. one that goes largely unacknowledged. but its there.

humanity may achieve unity and peace with itself, but then there is still the rest of the cosmos to deal with... not necessarily 'aliens', but other natural phenomena that presents enough of a threat to our existence to bolster unity. (rogue comets, meteors, entropy, poverty, hunger, abuse, disease...) and maybe even the possibility that there are other hostile forces that would do us in regardless of our social shortcomings.

part of the problem being that there are those among us that consider themselves to be more human than the rest of the population.

Could you please explain what you mean by "part of the problem being that there are those among us that consider themselves to be more human than the rest of the population?

maybe i should have worded that better or formed a complete sentence... oops...

but i think its kind of self explanatory.

you know Russ... supremacists. unity will be difficult with those that think they are better than everyone else. our differences make us no better than one another.

of course it could be argued that even this archetype is as well part of the greater whole. which is why acceptance and tolerance is key. someone could think themselves to be above the rest of humanity and still be tolerant rather than hateful or disdainful. that is a two way street. one need not like someone to extend cursory respect.