I had the following debate regarding matriarchy vs. patriarchy with a woman known as “BetterPro ThanCon”, in the “Disqus” comments section, following this article by Sheriff David Clarke: “This is a war, and Black Lives Matter is the enemy”. The article can be found on Thehill.com on July 18, 2016.

“BetterPro ThanCon” is a play on words, I presume, involving pro-gressive and con-servative. But think about that same wordplay and the Constitution and you get a sense of what feminism is really about.

The Socialist Party USA’s platform in the “Women” section says, “We call for the decriminalization of prostitution and demand that sex workers, just like all women workers, are guaranteed a full range of health, social, and legal services.”

My name on Disqus is Craig. Here is my initial comment:

“Craig”

Underclass culture (of all races) is Feminism fully applied to society. If you want to see what all of society would look like under authoritarian Feminism, just observe the Underclass: Unwed mothers and unwed fathers, illegitimacy, poor education, crime, drugs, divorce, gambling, poverty, dependency, prostitution, abortion, and unemployment.

Even revolution and “war”, as sheriff David Clarke describes it, is part of the feminist plan. Feminists are preparing for a violent revolutionary period. But don’t take my word for it. Here is an excerpt from socialist feminist Alison Jaggar’s book, Feminist Politics and Human Nature: “Socialist feminists, by contrast, are sufficiently MARXIST to be skeptical that the white male ruling class would give up its power without a VIOLENT STRUGGLE; however, they are confident that such a struggle could be won by the overwhelming majority of the population whom they see as their potential allies. Socialist feminists EXPECT that there will be a DISTINCTIVE REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD, characterized by ACUTE SOCIAL TURMOIL, but they also expect THAT THE OUTCOME OF THIS TURMOIL WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE KIND AND QUALITY OF THE PRE-REVOLUTIONARY ACTIVITY THAT HAS PRECEDED IT. To this extent, they see themselves not so much as living the REVOLUTION as PREPARING FOR IT and attempting in limited ways to PREFIGURE IT.” [Emphasis added.]

For a lot more on the Marxist ideology underlying the three major branches of feminism: liberal, radical, and socialist, go to website: CenterRightAmerica.SquareSpace.com

You can find the quote above in the entry “Post-Constitutional and Pre-Revolutionary” in “The Daily Vos” page.

“BetterPro ThanCon” replied to me:

In patriarchal societies, some people do well but in matriarchal societies, EVERYONE does well. So there goes that stupid theory of yours.

No, you didn’t miss anything, this debate was off-topic from what Sheriff Clarke wrote about.

Her reply was in response to my first paragraph and the list of problems among the underclass. The problems of the underclass are caused by failed feminist alternatives to “patriarchal” institutions that help everyone who uses them.

Her reply would be an applause line on every feminist-oriented TV show from Donahue to Oprah. It is a good example of Guideline 5c: feminists can say whatever they want to about women – even if it is a lie – as long as it builds up women everybody is expected to cheer wildly. She wrote, “EVERYONE does well” in matriarchal societies, but is her assertion true?

“Craig”. I replied to her:

In Marxist societies (and feminism is based on Marxism) EVERYONE is equally poor. North Korea, for example.

Here are some statistics for perspective and to support my reply: the U.S. economy (gross domestic product) is $18 trillion per year. Japan’s is $4.5 trillion. Mexico’s is $1 trillion. Nigeria’s is a half trillion dollars. North Korea’s economy is just $17 billion.

“BetterPro ThanCon” replied to me:

Feminism is NOT ‘marxism’ and clearly you have no idea what either word means. Besides, it doesn’t refute the facts I provided.

If you are on my website right now, I think you will agree that I know a lot about the three major branches of feminism and their Marxist foundations.

“Craig”. I replied to her:

Feminism is based on Marxism. My website, CenterRightAmerica.SquareSpace, is chock-full of proof of that. In the quote above, a socialist feminist says socialist feminists are Marxists. And you didn’t provide any facts in your comment to me.

“BetterPro ThanCon” replied to me:

I don’t care what one woman thinks, most women disagree and I am a woman.

[I, CenterRightAmerica, will provide the specific titles, sources, and dates, of the two actual articles the links go to. “BetterPro ThanCon”’s links are nondescript.

1. “Five Things We Know About Societies Run By Women”. Jill Hamilton. damemagazine.com. 05/10/2013.

2. “Matriarchy vs. Patriarchy”. AKBear. dailykos.com. April 11, 2015.] 

Her reply using links to articles is her attempt to provide facts. The articles are about the supposed benefits of matriarchy.

“Craig”. I replied to her:

The link to dame magazine actually supports my points. One of the section headings is: “Marriage Is Less Binding (If It Exists At All)”. The two examples of matriarchal societies in the link are “the Aka tribe of Africa” and “the Khasi of northeast India.”

I was referring to the points in my initial comment at the top about unwed mothers, unwed fathers, and illegitimacy.

The Aka and Khasi are very small tribes and extremely poor. The Aka “are a nomadic Mbenga pygmy people.” The entire population of Akas is just 30,000 people. “As a result of their hunter-gatherer lifestyle, which frequently exposes them to the blood of jungle fauna, they have among the highest rates of seropositivity for Ebola virus in the world.” (Source: “Aka people”. Wikipedia. The page was last modified on 13 February 2017.)

“While the women hunt, the men look after the babies – even letting them suck their nipples.” “If it all sounds like a feminist paradise there is, alas, a sting in the tale: Hewlett found that, while tasks and decision-making were largely shared activities, there is an Aka glass ceiling. Top jobs in the tribe invariably go to men.” (Source: “Are the men of the African Aka tribe the best fathers in the world?” theguardian.com. 15 June, 2005.)

So, if you like pygmies and don’t mind Ebola, extreme poverty, and the mosquito-net ceiling preventing you from becoming the tribe’s shaman, then it is, indeed, a feminist paradise.

The Khasi people of India do have one idea that I think you will like. Traditionally, in their culture you could divorce your (in my mind feminist) wife just by throwing away five seashells.

To be fair, some patriarchal countries are poor too, Marxist countries such as North Korea, for example. But this, too, portends economic trouble caused by liberal, radical, and socialist feminism because they are based on Marxism.

“BetterPro ThanCon” replied to me:

No, the link does NOT support your point and there are more examples of matriarchal societies if you look. Stay benighted Craig!!

She is certain there is no evidence contrary to what she wants to believe and certain that she is the enlightened one.

“Craig”. I replied to her:

Give us a list of matriarchal societies.

Here, I am doing something very important. I am asking her to provide information in support of her assertions. The burden of proof is on her.

“BetterPro ThanCon” replied to me:

Google it junior, I’m not your mommy.

I anticipated she might respond like that and I stayed on her.

“Craig”. I replied to her:

I’m just asking for a few examples, it doesn’t need to be a comprehensive list.

It is important that it is her list of examples. If I had searched Google and found a couple of examples of poor matriarchal societies, she could just repeatedly tell me to continue looking for successful matriarchal societies (which don’t exist) — putting the burden of proof on me to, perversely, prove her point.

“BetterPro ThanCon” replied to me:

[I, CenterRightAmerica, will provide the specific titles, sources, and dates, of the three actual articles the links go to. “BetterPro ThanCon”’s links are nondescript.

1. “List of matrilineal or matrilocal societies”. Wikipedia. The page was last modified on 14 November 2016.

2. “6 Modern Societies Where Women Rule”. Laura Turner Garrison. Mentalfloss.com. This post originally appeared in 2012.

3. “Where women rule the world: Matriarchal communities from Albania to China”. Christian Koch. Metro.co.uk. 5 March 2013.]

Here is one example from the third source listed above. “Welcome to America’s Womyn’s Lands. These largely lesbian communities… Today, one of the largest Womyn’s Lands is found in rural Alabama, in a camp called Alapine Village. Here 13 women (most aged between 50 and 80) co-exist, working the land by day and meeting for ‘community full moon circles’ (activities: singing and reading poems) by night.”

Just 13(!) old lesbians is an example of “one of the largest Womyn’s Lands”? This is too easy.

These societies “where women rule” are some of the poorest people on earth and are on the verge of extinction. An essential component of effective argumentation is to know your opponent’s arguments as well as your own. “BetterPro ThanCon” had links with examples of matriarchal societies but it seems she didn’t even bother to read her own links.

“Craig”. I replied to her:

These examples refute your point, which was, “in matriarchal societies, EVERYONE does well.” The people in your examples are much poorer than America’s working-class.

That is where the exchange about matriarchy ended. “BetterPro ThanCon” has mastered the technique of providing links even if she doesn’t read them herself. I will let you decide who won the debate and which one you think is better, matriarchy or patriarchy.