Is the human being a patriarchy or a both sexes species?

[InvaderShy 18]

First let see what's a patriarchy. We can resume patriarchy as a system in which the male is the center of every political, economic and social issues. 

 

Now, its counterpart, the matriarchy is a system where the same things above-mentioned apply to the female being this the head of everything. Thus, we can say the Equestria's government is logic for the equines are a species where there's a lead mare, not a stallion. This could be logic as well if the series had the name of "My Little Hyena" (applied to spotted hyenas).

 

Throughout the human history we could appreciate most of leaders were men and women were considered an object, rather than a person in past times. Even with the growing respect the women have been gaining, we can see the men's wage in the enterprises is bigger than the women's wage. 

 

So, taking into account the fact that horses/ponies and spotted are natural matriarcal-organized organisms. Could we affirm we are a species where the male, by natural rule, is the absolute boss of everything? Or, with the current social advances, had we become a both sexes species?

 

(No, I'm not male chauvinist nor sexist if you're wondering about that).

 

[Shanks 10,811]

Depends on the culture you are talking about, some western cultures are a bit more egalitarian with certain ideals like women having the right to vote, own property, work and even hold political power. In the middle east and parts of Africa and Asia it is still very patriarchal. Of course although there are some feminists who take things a bit far there dosen't seem to be widespread support for taking things toward the other extreme of a hard line matriarchy so overall humanity is leaning a bit more toward patriarchy though it is much much more egalitarian than it used to be at least in the western world.

[Adash 193]

In the US, I believe we have advanced toward a both sex society, but there are slightly male dominant aspects in it.

[I used to be a stranger 7,989]

I hold that every person was created equal and therefore has equal investment and responsibility in the dominion of cultivating and working on/with nature. I do not think that humans are a species indistinct from other natural kingdoms however. Sexual hierarchies as seen in other species are not relatable to the human context nor should they be assumed as such.

[Invincible 2,090]

I'll have to tentatively say that we've ascended past biological markings. I don't know how it's everywhere else in the world, but it's obvious women arn't treated equally everywhere. Some have it rougher than usual in various places. But at the same time, most modern societies have made for quite an advancement to the position of women in society, especially in the past century. Male supremacy isn't really the thing it used to be, social and technological advances help blur the lines between the sexes in most aspects of society nowadays.

[Dattebayo 2,850]

It's a kind of a "patriarchy" in the US because women have only just begun to be allowed to hold positions of power.

But compared to other countries, that's the bee's knees. And it's only a matter of time until the House of Representatives is marvelouslys mixed in both race and gender.

[Ashen Pathfinder 16,151]

Well, the nation is still young and is growing in regards to diversity of the sexes. Men are still in the majority of rule, but women are making inroads. I'm not sure if we'll ever get to the point of a mixed diversity in power, but some of the signs are encouraging.

 

In truth, it's more complicated than just patriarchy, but things are changing.

[Dattebayo 2,850]

Well, the nation is still young and is growing in regards to diversity of the sexes. Men are still in the majority of rule, but women are making inroads. I'm not sure if we'll ever get to the point of a mixed diversity in power, but some of the signs are encouraging.

 

In truth, it's more complicated than just patriarchy, but things are changing.

Yeah. It's a stubborn, bumpy road to change something that's been around since the dawn of the US, and way before that as well.

But progress is progress. We may even see a woman in the white house in the upcoming election.

[Ashen Pathfinder 16,151]

Yeah. It's a stubborn, bumpy road to change something that's been around since the dawn of the US, and way before that as well.

But progress is progress. We may even see a woman in the white house in the upcoming election.

 

Oh I won't deny that.

 

Anything is possible and it won't end even if we do have a woman in the white house, but signs are at least positive.

[Shanks 10,811]

Yeah. It's a stubborn, bumpy road to change something that's been around since the dawn of the US, and way before that as well.

But progress is progress. We may even see a woman in the white house in the upcoming election.

Yes we indeed might, but what is worrying to me is how people focus so heavily on the first this or that that many of them forget what is most important in a presidential candidate. Barrack Obama for example is Americas first black president and while it is of course great that blacks are no longer have to be slaves or deal with segregation Obama is one of the worst presidents America has ever had. Other than being able to speak coherrant sentences and other general differences in rheotic I just don't see any major difference between him and Bush but with both major parties being bought and paid for by the same interests it sad but not all that surprising.

 

Alot of people supported Obama in part because of the whole "he would be/is the first" mentality and I honestly find it racist and insulting and while I fully expect this to happen if Hilary Clinton decides to run again that dosen't mean I have to like or approve of it. When I vote for someone I do so because I think they would make a good candidate (I don't do "lesser evil") not because they may or may not be the first this or that.

[Dattebayo 2,850]

Yes we indeed might, but what is worrying to me is how people focus so heavily on the first this or that that many of them forget what is most important in a presidential candidate. Barrack Obama for example is Americas first black president and while it is of course great that blacks are no longer have to be slaves or deal with segregation Obama is one of the worst presidents America has ever had. Other than being able to speak coherrant sentences and other general differences in rheotic I just don't see any major difference between him and Bush but with both major parties being bought and paid for by the same interests it sad but not all that surprising.

 

Alot of people supported Obama in part because of the whole "he would be/is the first" mentality and I honestly find it racist and insulting and while I fully expect this to happen if Hilary Clinton decides to run again that dosen't mean I have to like or approve of it. When I vote for someone I do so because I think they would make a good candidate (I don't do "lesser evil") not because they may or may not be the first this or that.

If Hilary Clinton is anything like her husband, we're in for good times.

I disagree with you about 'Bama, but I really don't feel like getting into another argument, especially with a close friend.