Chapter One: Why we need women to rule our world

Why We Need Women To Rule Our World

By William Bond and Pamela Suffield

Chapter One

This book is about why all of us, both women and men, would be far better off if women ruled our world.  In the whole of recorded history it has nearly always been men who have been the rulers, to the point that most people think it is normal and cannot imagine what the world would be like, if women ruled instead.

We not only accept male rule as normal but we also take for granted the mess the world is in.  Our history has been a history of warfare. This has become so commonplace we take it for granted that countries routinely settle differences between them through extreme violence.  We also take for granted the enormous gap between rich and poor.  

Although things have slightly improved these days compared with the past, the inequality of our societies is still vast, as bankers award themselves million dollar bonuses while the common people have to pay for the banker’s mistakes.  The reason why we accept all this is because we cannot find a solution to any of these problems through male rule.

So why would we think that women could do a far better job of ruling than men?  To understand this, we have to look at why men find it so difficult to solve the problems of our world.  Many famous men have talked about man’s inhumanity to man, and have tried through religions and political systems to find solutions.  Although many religions have preached love and compassion, they have totally failed to stop warfare and often seem to have made the situation worse, by creating religious wars.

No patriarchal religion has produced a loving and caring society.  Political systems haven’t been much better. Communism and socialism, for instance, had the aim of creating equality for all, but completely failed to do this.  The only political system that seems to have produced a marked difference for the better has been democracy, mostly because it allows people to ditch an unpopular government by voting them out of office, instead of having a violent revolution to do this.

So why is it that men, in five thousand years of recorded history, have failed to solve fundamental problems like warfare and inequality?   The root cause of this is men’s basic instincts.  Most male animals have a powerful competitive urge. They fight other males for access to females.  This is why many male animals battle with each other every spring, to sort out who has the right to mate with the females.  

Evolutionists tell us that this is a good thing, because the strongest males get to pass on their genes to the next generation.  It ensures that the species remains strong and vigorous.  This might be fine for other animals, but it becomes a disaster when men, with the same competitive instincts, slug it out using devastating modern weapons.

It's easy to see that men often behave like other rutting males from the animal kingdom. Take jousting for example. Back in medieval times it was a popular sport involving two horse riders, who charged at each other with long lances.  This isn't very different from the way stags, bulls and rams with big horns, charge each other every spring.   Nowadays, we can see similar behaviour in a rugby scrum, or American football scrimmage, where players push against each other to see who is the strongest.  

It’s also true of other sports. There's very little difference between the way male kangaroos box each other and the way men fight in a boxing ring.  This sort of behaviour may be reasonably harmless in sport but it's a different matter when men's competitive instinct is used in wars, where men fight each other with spears, swords, rifles, machine guns, flame throwers, aircraft, rockets and even nuclear weapons.

No wonder men find it so hard to abandon warfare. Their basic instincts drive them to compete with other men, to see who is the strongest.   How dangerous this can be was shown in the cold war between the USA and USSR. Both sides raced to produce more and more powerful nuclear bombs and rockets, and eventually deployed enough nuclear weapons to destroy civilization many times over.  From the early 1950s to the end of the 1980s people all over the world lived in fear of men committing global suicide through nuclear warfare.  Although this is not such a great threat now, it is still with us. The spread of nuclear weapons technology and the nightmare scenario of nuclear weapons getting into the hands of an insane dictator or a terrorist group still remains.

The competitive instinct also makes it impossible for men to create an equal society.  When stags fight each other for access to females, the end result is that the winner takes it all.  The strongest stag has no intention of sharing the females of his harem with any of the weaker stags.  Exactly the same thing happens in human society.  In the past, kings and lords grabbed vast wealth for themselves while the ordinary people were poor peasants, serfs or even slaves. It's true that today things have improved but even in democratic countries there is still an immense gap between rich and poor.

All of this means that while men continue to rule the world, they will also continue to compete with each other for power and wealth, creating highly unequal societies and devastating wars.  Modern technology is still being used to create more and more deadly weapons with which to kill people.   Clearly, men are doing a terrible job ruling our world, so why would we think women would do it better?  To answer this, we need to go back to women’s basic instincts.

After the stags had fought each other and the strongest had fertilized the females, it was then the female’s job to allow the fetus to grow inside her body. When her fawn was born, she cared for it until it was developed enough to look after itself.  The reason why female mammals do this is because of a powerful maternal instinct, which drives most of them to devote their lives to caring for their young.  

It has to be like this, because without a powerful nurturing instinct the species would quickly become extinct.  The human female also has a very powerful maternal instinct, because the human child takes far longer to reach maturity than most other animals.  An animal like a deer can reach full maturity in five years, but for a human it can take up to 20 years, so the commitment of a human mother to her child has to be stronger than in most other animals.

As we can see with patriarchal, male dominated governments, it is men’s fierce competitive instinct that dictates how men behave when they rule. In matriarchal, female dominated governments, it will be women’s nurturing instincts that will determine how a female government will behave.  Because of women’s maternal instincts, the main focus of any matriarchal government will be children.  No female dominated government will want to see any child in the country they rule, live in poverty and ignorance.  They will devote more of the resources of the country into caring for children, than any patriarchal government, which means maternal care and education will take priority over other aspects of government spending.

It's women who tend to dominate the caring professions. They are the nurses and doctors, carers of the elderly, teachers, playgroup leaders and social workers.  This is because women’s maternal instincts are so strong that they not only care for their own children but also other people's children, the sick, the elderly and animals. While in patriarchal countries the caring professions are starved of money, and many female carers are underpaid and overworked, in a matriarchal country, many more resources will go to the caring professions. A female dominated government will use its power to create a far more compassionate and nurturing society.   This will also lead to a much more equal society.  If more resources are put into educating and caring for all children, the poor will have the same opportunities and develop the same sense of self worth as children from rich families.

This will inevitably reduce crime.  It's an open secret that poverty is the main cause of crime.  A person with a well paid job and respected social standing is far less likely to commit crime than a person with a poorly paid job or who is unemployed and unskilled.  Countries with the highest crime rates tend to have a large gap between rich and poor.  The quickest way to overcome this is to eliminate relative poverty. A nurturing matriarchal government is far more likely to do this than a competitive patriarchal government.

It has to be admitted that it is men who commit most crime, largely because they are more aggressive, violent and selfish than women are.  These traits can be made worse by the macho image that patriarchal societies tend to foist on men.   The heroes in books, comics, TV, films and video games for boys, are very violent men.  In most stories, the hero becomes the winner by being better than the villain at using a weapon or his fists. The message is that violence is the solution to all problems and these aggressive heroes become a boy’s role models.  A matriarchal government will think it crazy to use the media to encourage young men to be violent and look for more constructive ways to entertain boys. They will seek to create more caring and responsible males as role models for boys and young men.

Matriarchy can also solve the population explosion.  During the last hundred years we have suffered a steep rise in our populations. The world now contains nearly seven billion people. What is striking about this increase is that it mostly occurs in poorer countries. In richer Western countries the population is largely stable, with the numbers only growing through immigration from poorer countries.  So why is the population jumping in poorer third world countries?   One reason is that some follow religions like Roman Catholicism or Islam which discourage birth control. Women are often barred from education and told that their only function is to breed. It can also be because of a lack of social services.  

In the west, when people become too old to work they receive a pension and can be cared for in retirement homes if they become ill or too frail to look after themselves, but in countries without such a system, the elderly depend on their children to care for them.  So families in poorer countries, sometimes with high infant mortality rates, feel they need to have many children to ensure they are looked after in their old age. Matriarchal governments will change this because more resources will be allocated to social care and the education and empowerment of women instead of the grandiose palaces and armies chosen by men. A population which feels secure and valued will not feel the need to have large numbers of children.

A matriarchal government will also have a very different attitude towards warfare.  Although it would probably be their natural instinct to eliminate the military altogether, women leaders will be realistic enough to know that to do so would leave their country open to invasion or bullying by patriarchal countries with military power.  So they will be forced to retain their military strength while there are still patriarchal countries on the planet.  The big difference will be that a female-led government will never actively seek conflict in the same way male dominated countries do.  They are far more likely to discuss their differences with other countries than to go to war with them.  However, complete disarmament will only be possible if every country in the world becomes matriarchal, and women truly rule the world.

To sum up, all people, both men and women, would be far better off if our world was ruled by maternal and nurturing women rather than, as now, competitive and aggressive men. This raises the question; how can women gain power in order to rule our world? After all, men are physically bigger and stronger than women, as well as being more competitive, aggressive and violent.  How can women overcome these disadvantages, when competing with men for power?