I won’t go there. And I won’t go to churches in China. I have met people who go to these places to cause trouble or smuggle things.
He’s certainly been supportive of Obama’s wars. He’s in support of the Kill Matrix. Now he’s fanning the neoconservative russian hysteria psyop (see my post, in answer to @MCH).
On the other hand, I don’t think it’s all he is. He supports “workers”, in the sense that he wants better wages and working conditions. But in that vein, supporting the development of a weapons industry in vermont has counted for him as “supporting workers”. So to him, demonstrating against that industry is being “anti-worker”. This is exactly what happened in relation to protests against GE in Burlington when they were making helicopter gattling guns for the Contra war.
Without confronting the MIC? While supporting the Kill Matrix?
And, … “matriarchial,” like Madelaine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Samantha Powers … ?
Sure, it makes you chuckle. You’re a good liberal, laughing at a left that at minimum wants an anti-war candidate.
Let me tell you, buddy. If we don’t get someone who’s going to confront the MIC, we’re not going to get anything but nice words.
I completely agree. I don’t want us to minimize how much work this is going to be, though. There really is no Left in this country; and all the powerful institutions are against us. We’ve got the internet - if we can keep it.
We’ve always been here, but then the Obamabots turned into Berniebots and hounded us into silence. Some of us actually want rational discussion about the bind we’re stuck in.
I don’t think it’s a matter of learning. If anything, given his short period of real radical politics, his “learning” is what brought him to where he is. He’s made his compromises, and I don’t think there’s any going back now.
I’ll just link my earlier response here, on Gabbard.
“successfully changed Britain with BREXIT” - I think that was Cambridge Analytica. Look it up.
“changed France” - the French themselves denied any hacking by Russia. You’re obviously not keeping up.
“Changed American Politics” - Every new breathless report turns into a big nothing, yet many of us still seem to be consuming the cow pies.
The story is not Russia. The story is a populist revolt against a corrupt liberal class that is destroying the foundations of a livable society for most of its members. While I’m not surprised, I do wish they could have picked better.
In my understanding of the terms, though associated with male and female (for good reason), patriarchal power and matriarchal power are not ultimately defined by gender, but by their defining characteristics. Patriarchy is hierarchical, with a clear order of power with the person at the top with absolute power over those under him (or her).
Matriarchy is power associated with the feminine, creation, regeneration, fertility, imagination, the arts, community, nature, love, intuition.
In Christianity, the god of the Old Testament wielded patriarchal power. The idea of the god in the sky that will wipe your ass out unless you obey seemingly arbitrary rules. The god of the New Testament is a matriarchal god, emphasizing love and community, turn the other cheek. Early Christianity was matriarchal but when the Roman empire adopted it as its official religion, it was subsumed into a patriarchal hierarchical tradition with priests with doctrines like original sin that associate sex with evil. Augustine said every time a man and woman have sex they once again commit the original sin.
What patriarchal power has created is a world where people feel free to destroy nature–that with humans at the top, other forms of life are not as important as we are. When power is hierarchical it gives license to kill those with less or no power–war on ‘lesser’ humans, destruction of nature.
Females can be subsumed into a patriarchal power structure as perhaps those three women you mentioned were, as males can also be subsumed into matriarchal power.
It is unfortunate that patriarchy and matriarchy are so strongly associated with male and female because if you go into it deep enough, they have nothing to do with gender.
Anyway, this is what I think. Feel free to disagree.
C99%, hellz yeah.
I can’t find a definition of M and P online that matches yours, although I do not doubt that the words may be used in that way by some writers.
I’ve heard the words used for home systems of power, with some countries using a more pattriarchal family command, especially in South Asia, and others, maybe Thai and some parts of China, where the women have more power at home.
Anne Baring discusses this topic in the below video, starting at 2:45.
This is not at all off-topic as I believe it goes right to the root of our society’s ills. Sociologists have numerous terms to explain matriarchy, which I suggest we leave to them as it would require many hours of actual academic research to be able to reduce its meaning to an accurate and short blurb. The same thing really can be said of the word feminism–too many different meanings floating around. Patriarchy is the flip side of that coin. The utter destruction created as patriarchy has played out speaks to its obvious and major flaw: an assumption of supreme power lacking any mediating force, from the mundane to the most serious events.
How does the Women’s Movement play into all this? Has the Women’s Movement moved us beyond any need to establish a matrilinear relationship with the law; women may choose to keep their surnames when they marry, and are legally bequeathing and inheriting wealth and property (where it exists). It is the imbalance in the power relationship that has proved the hardest to overcome. The intersection where feminism (or matriarchy?) meet patriarchy, to me, is the intersection where our choice of words and understanding of both terms is most important, along with a clear vision of where all this headed. Thanks for bringing this up.
The Haudenosaunee Confederacy, a pre-Columbian north eastern Native American union of tribes were primarily organized and governed by women.There is evidence our Constitution was based on theirs.
Thanks for the information. It will take me a little time to research all the points made that I care about, e.g. I have a problem with politicians who can’t be rational about the Iran Deal which was one of the couple good things to come out of the Obama Presidency (even though according to Trita Parsi who I respect, the sanctions were never fully dropped). Currently Tulsi supports the Iran deal, e.g. https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/video-rep-tulsi-gabbard-we-must-uphold-iran-nuclear-agreement, but I haven’t had a chance to review her past statements.
On LGBTQ issues, I appreciate her learning something when on duty in another country that she could apply positively to the US situation. If I get to choose between politician A and B and both are pro gay-marriage given the voters have spoken, but A still thinks it is wrong and has personal issues with it for whatever reason (religious usually), and B has ideas on foreign policy that are more misguided (e.g. wants to try for military misadventure in Libya, Syria, or what have you), I’ll pick A every time. Substitute abortion rights for gay marriage? - same thing to me.
I don’t care if her dad was a jerk.
I’m not that keen on many ideas in Islam either so her having a problem with radical islam doesn’t automatically rule her out for me. I don’t agree with everything that Sam Harris says, but I more or less agree that more people in that religion believe they have to take everything in their book as true than most other religions (i.e. there are fewer cafeteria Muslims as a percentage than cafeteria Christians or Jews, though obviously there are plenty of cafeteria Muslims too and I know several), and their book is pretty bad. We’d be better off if people who wanted to be religious (not me) just became Unitarian or something similar. I’m not sure what I can do about it though other than trying to talk people out of being religious - I’m not for a religous test for immigration for example, but suffice it say Tulis’s personal opinion on Islam has not caused any obvious policy failurs I’ve seen.
On the positive side from this article, pulling out of Afghanistan is a big deal - something we should have done long ago. If we could get a majority of politicians on this page, we and they’d be in better shape.
As far as drone strikes, Tulsi was recently on Intercepted (I recommend this interview - episode White Mirror) and Jeremy and her went back and forth on this a bit. I think her response was measured and I don’t see her as doing as many drone strikes (most of which are counterproductive) as did Obama. I realize she isn’t a pacifist and we couldn’t elect one if we wanted to, but I’m not going to vote for a warmonger either and as far as I can tell thus far, she isn’t one.
Also as far as her only being anti-war when US forces are on the line, why is she fairly vocal against our helping Saudi Arabia against Yemen? https://www.votetulsi.com/node/33011 I guess you could argue she is just being pragmatic in terms of reducing future terrorists (and important consideration), but as I’ve heard her in the past, she seems to have genuine regard for foreign peoples - not that you can ever by 100% sure of that with politicians.
I still have to look into her admiration for Narendra Modi. I know very little about Indian politics but am well aware of right wing Hindu factions that are a big part of the problem. It would be disappointing if she were fanning the flames for those groups.
I agree that this topic does go to the heart of our society’s ills. Defining it is tough, though, isn’t it? thanks for trying with me.
I read the stories about the matriarchal societies you linked to and followed the links within the stories themselves. I think they show how societies organized by female leadership are radically different. That Mosuo tribe in China sounds bizarre, like a tribe of bonobos with men lazing around all day and sleeping with different women every night.
What seems to be a common characteristic of all these cultures is a much lower incidence of violence and crime. Also a characteristic motive to have things operate efficiently. Yep, that’s a society run by grandmothers.
The feminine has been suppressed in western culture for about 4,000 years. By feminine I mean the archetypal characteristics of the mother goddess of neolithic societies, creation, regeneration as symbolized by the moon’s cycles, the idea of the earth as mother, Gaia theory of James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis that defined the Earth as a single self-regulating system that includes humans (contrasted with Descartes’ separation of humans from the rest of nature).
The suppression of the feminine in humans has just about destroyed the Earth through violence. War, poisons in agriculture, guns and other weapons, sexual assault. You might say boys gone wild.
There were two recent articles in the Guardian that to me symbolized the two opposing forces we’re trying to define. One was a story about planting fields of cereal crops in the U.K. with strips of wildflowers interspersed to serve as habitat for beneficial insects that suppress insects harmful to the grain crop. The other was about chickens India given in their feed doses of colistin, a powerful antibiotic of last resort.
Some press please now on the released memo, please? Is this site too DNC-oriented to discuss it?
Bernie is far from being a neocon or neo lib. Bernie remembers the true red scare and people should look that up. (I remember havig to duck and cover) When both the House and Senate want to impose sanctions on Russia and the President for reasons unknown refuses - well something isn’t right. The CIA itself has said Russia hacked our elections, and Bernie has access to classified info we do not - so why do you insist he’s wrong in the matter of cyber warfare?
As to class - this country has already adopted a caste system like India, and the people at the bottom are ‘untouchables’ with the working poor not far behind. 20 percent of our children live with hunger and worse deprivation. We boast we’re the richest country in the world- So why are they starving?
Bernie has a good grasp of what’s going on with the ‘oil’ wars in the ME and what they are costing the US, only the oil barons are making profit from them as well as the companies designing the toys of war. We are NOT the world police, and we aren’t bringing peace and ‘democracy’ to these countries.
The DNC is not a friend to Bernie. They’re not a friend to the commen man/woman anymore. We need leaders who will fight for us, the people, and Bernie surely does that.
Bernie will Not get us into any wars with Russia/China - and definitely not North Korea, but the current administration seems as if they’d welcome it. That is the true scare!
Thanks for additional info I was not aware of. Have you seen the Hamilton 68 digital monitoring board?