How to prevent war. By Virginia Woolf, Riane Eisler, Leymah Gbowee, Julie Ward Howe, Malalai Joya, Audre Lorde, Winona LaDuke, Gloria Steinem and bell hooks.
Also, I would mention for the inevitable “but I once had a woman boss who was a dictator in the office” comments on their way, that we clearly understand that sometimes women dress up in patriarchy and play by the same rules and perpetuate the same tired themes. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. We are calling in a whole new way of being—not where women dominate and control men in a vengeful, tables-turned scenario, but that we do things entirely collaboratively, peacefully, and with the goal that everyone benefits.
Indeed. Especially the KKKRISTIAN ZIONAZIS who literally want to usher in Armageddon, having the audacity to think that they will be part of the Rapture.
Nice theory. How do we enact it? Start with our children. Both parents need to raise daughters and sons to resist all the nicely wrapped domination training—-sports. We indoctrinate our young sons in particular to play for a team, as a team, against the enemy team who fundamentally is just like them. Parents cheer and boo at the games, shout at the refs and are hostile or outright rude about team members. All this is training for the team of your country, your employer, your armies. Video games follow a close second to normalizing win/lose, aggression and the enemy as other. Want to change the world? Start at the cradle.
I think we can reframe sports to be about more than winning and losing, but not letting your kids play sports at all because it’s ‘domination’ training is just silly and ineffective parenting.
Thank you Celeste. This piece helped me find some hope in the anger and despair I feel about this new war. Hearing about what these women say about war and the war machine feels so fresh. I remember meeting a female history professor whose specialty was World War I. I asked her, “Do you have a particular battle that you focus on in your research?” She said, “oh I don’t really care about the battles, I research and write about the human stories of the war. I’m interested in the people.” Patriarchal leaders, as the war games show, seem to completely ignore the human collateral damage that comes from war. In contrast, so many women I know immediately think of all the sad, sad stories that will follow yet another war.
It’s not surprising that Woolf recognizes that patriarchy and and militarism are one and the same, she was so adept at seeing these systemic problems, especially for her time, that it gives me both hope and grief. On one hand I think, how incredible that a woman, and women like her, could be so insightful at that time. On the other, I think, and yet we are still here. Same patriarchal hierarchies and power structures using the same weapons of war.
Hierarchical power crushes everyone except those predators at the top. Only by teaching and practicing cooperation and equality can we break this vicious cycle.
Dobbs convinced me women should be running things.
I was PISSED. If that happened to me - stripped of personal autonomy by government edict - I’d be cutting throats and blowing shit up. Not women. Y’all are too pragmatic to burn the house down in a fit of pique. We’re not, as the current situation proves beyond any reasonable doubt.
So I, for one, welcome our new matriarchal overlords.
But well, no, not exactly what I meant. There wouldn‘t be any „over-whatever“ in a matriarchy: matriarchy = equality
Of course there would be individuals who know more than others, those would be consulted for advice, for example. But the point of matriarchy is moving away from our form of hierarchies.
Yeah, and the women who buy into the hierarchical systems are the ones who become MAGA white women, or Jewish Zionist women who agree with the genocide in Gaza, or Islamist terrorist women who become suicide bombers, or sleeper cell women who spy or plan attacks for whatever country’s hierarchical system created them. Or they are the apologists for the bad behavior of their governments. So many of the indigenous people across the world are much more advanced in this than those of us from the colonial diaspora.
The same domination vs. partnership dynamics we see in politics often show up inside relationships too.
The micro and the macro mirror each other more than we like to admit. Perhaps peace between nations also begins with the way we learn to relate to each other in everyday life.
A fitting reflection for International Women’s Day, especially while so many questions about equality, economic, social, and political remain unresolved.
I agree with this article and everything that it has to say, its perspective, and what it aspires to. The experience and question that came up for me as a strait, white, man, who works in the construction industry in his 40's (I know, I know, just hear me out) comes from here.
A while ago I volunteer to work in a kitchen making meals for unhoused people with a student lead mutual aid group in town here. It had a flat heirarchy structure and I was very careful not to try to impose or control the dynamic, to sit back and just participate.
The thing that I noticed was how badly the meal came together, how badly our time was spent, and how terribly everything was organzied. The question that I was left with, and I ask this with the goal of talking through this problem and finding a solution, is how do people organize and get things done well without some kind of heirarchy? It sounds like this is something they are good at in Scandinavian countries but its not something I have a lot of experience with living in Canada and am quite curious how things get done without some kind of organizational heirarchy. Thanks
Perhaps there is a place for hierarchy, just not exactly as we know it to be. I think of 12 step meetings as an example of hierarchy that works, though perhaps it's better described as good distribution of power. For an AA meeting that congregates once a week, there are many positions held within it to keep it going. Secretary (this role holds the most leadership, as they run the meeting), treasurer, coffee preparer, greeter, and so on. Every 6 months or so, every single one of the positions is replaced by a new person, either by volunteer or via democratic election by the group. The short time limit is great, as it ensures no one stays in their position for too long, and therefore power is distributed more equally. When everyone is given a chance to, for example, run the meeting as secretary, that combats against traditional hierarchal structure where only the leaders lead (the quietest person in the room could volunteer for this position), which helps with skill building amongst the group, critical thinking skills, forming trust and bonds with group members. Group synergy is strengthened with this structure as a whole, because group members understand exactly what is needed to keep the meeting functional and healthy. There are growing pains that come from folks taking a position they're not accustomed to, but at the end of the day, it's good for the group.
Hey Dylan, I liked your comment. Thinking about it, hierarchy is not the same a leadership. Humanity needs wise and humble leaders. I grew up in South Africa. Without Nelson Mandela’s leadership, the country would have descended into retaliatory violence after Apartheid ended. What stands out for me is that Nelson Mandela led by example. He didn’t give orders from an ivory tower. He preached peace and he acted peace.
This is inherently problematic because it creates cultural narrative (i.e. lies) used to justify entitlement beliefs, and create power imbalances that are then abused. Ex: patriarchal systems lie to men about their own entitlement at the top of a hierarchical gender pyramid scheme and use circular logic (i.e. falsely attributing effects of privilege to meritocracy) to keep stratification of human worth in place. Talent is equally distributed but opportunity isn't, which means patriarchy elevates mediocre and sub par straight, white, able bodied, neurotypical men over all other intersectional talent. And here we all are experiencing the deleterious ripple effects. So much dumb.
In contrast, I define "work" as partnering to meet a community need.
A leadership role within community is not inherently oppressive because it leaves all human worth intact. Rather, leadership can be a generous contribution. It can organize effort, contribute specialist skills and strengths, and elders are often consulted for accumulated lifetimes of lived experience (crystalized intelligence).
Being a parent can also be a beautiful example of leadership via temporary stewardship of sacred space (equal worth)... or abuse of a power imbalance justified by parental entitlement beliefs (ownership of a tiny human) and neglectful abdication of sacred responsibility.
I don’t think this is about hierarchy. It’s about simply ensuring that people are properly matched to their skill level, that everyone gets an opportunity to learn different skills and no one is getting ribbons, medals, and vastly better pay for being in charge. The student aid group was clearly short of the necessary skills.
So very timely, as always, Celeste.
Also, I would mention for the inevitable “but I once had a woman boss who was a dictator in the office” comments on their way, that we clearly understand that sometimes women dress up in patriarchy and play by the same rules and perpetuate the same tired themes. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. We are calling in a whole new way of being—not where women dominate and control men in a vengeful, tables-turned scenario, but that we do things entirely collaboratively, peacefully, and with the goal that everyone benefits.
Spot f#cking on!
A good start would be to not vote for corrupt, misogynist, pedophile, Zionist shill, grifters.
Indeed. Especially the KKKRISTIAN ZIONAZIS who literally want to usher in Armageddon, having the audacity to think that they will be part of the Rapture.
Nice theory. How do we enact it? Start with our children. Both parents need to raise daughters and sons to resist all the nicely wrapped domination training—-sports. We indoctrinate our young sons in particular to play for a team, as a team, against the enemy team who fundamentally is just like them. Parents cheer and boo at the games, shout at the refs and are hostile or outright rude about team members. All this is training for the team of your country, your employer, your armies. Video games follow a close second to normalizing win/lose, aggression and the enemy as other. Want to change the world? Start at the cradle.
I think we can reframe sports to be about more than winning and losing, but not letting your kids play sports at all because it’s ‘domination’ training is just silly and ineffective parenting.
Thank you Celeste. This piece helped me find some hope in the anger and despair I feel about this new war. Hearing about what these women say about war and the war machine feels so fresh. I remember meeting a female history professor whose specialty was World War I. I asked her, “Do you have a particular battle that you focus on in your research?” She said, “oh I don’t really care about the battles, I research and write about the human stories of the war. I’m interested in the people.” Patriarchal leaders, as the war games show, seem to completely ignore the human collateral damage that comes from war. In contrast, so many women I know immediately think of all the sad, sad stories that will follow yet another war.
It’s not surprising that Woolf recognizes that patriarchy and and militarism are one and the same, she was so adept at seeing these systemic problems, especially for her time, that it gives me both hope and grief. On one hand I think, how incredible that a woman, and women like her, could be so insightful at that time. On the other, I think, and yet we are still here. Same patriarchal hierarchies and power structures using the same weapons of war.
Indeed, patriarchy, militarism, imperialism, and now capitalism as well, have always had an incestuous relationship with one another.
Hierarchical power crushes everyone except those predators at the top. Only by teaching and practicing cooperation and equality can we break this vicious cycle.
Dobbs convinced me women should be running things.
I was PISSED. If that happened to me - stripped of personal autonomy by government edict - I’d be cutting throats and blowing shit up. Not women. Y’all are too pragmatic to burn the house down in a fit of pique. We’re not, as the current situation proves beyond any reasonable doubt.
So I, for one, welcome our new matriarchal overlords.
„Matriarchal overlords“?
Did you use this oxymoron on purpose?
Overladies?
😅 I have to admit this word‘s kinda cute.
But well, no, not exactly what I meant. There wouldn‘t be any „over-whatever“ in a matriarchy: matriarchy = equality
Of course there would be individuals who know more than others, those would be consulted for advice, for example. But the point of matriarchy is moving away from our form of hierarchies.
Yeah, and the women who buy into the hierarchical systems are the ones who become MAGA white women, or Jewish Zionist women who agree with the genocide in Gaza, or Islamist terrorist women who become suicide bombers, or sleeper cell women who spy or plan attacks for whatever country’s hierarchical system created them. Or they are the apologists for the bad behavior of their governments. So many of the indigenous people across the world are much more advanced in this than those of us from the colonial diaspora.
Interesting perspective, Celeste.
The same domination vs. partnership dynamics we see in politics often show up inside relationships too.
The micro and the macro mirror each other more than we like to admit. Perhaps peace between nations also begins with the way we learn to relate to each other in everyday life.
A fitting reflection for International Women’s Day, especially while so many questions about equality, economic, social, and political remain unresolved.
Absolutely. As above, so below.
I agree with this article and everything that it has to say, its perspective, and what it aspires to. The experience and question that came up for me as a strait, white, man, who works in the construction industry in his 40's (I know, I know, just hear me out) comes from here.
A while ago I volunteer to work in a kitchen making meals for unhoused people with a student lead mutual aid group in town here. It had a flat heirarchy structure and I was very careful not to try to impose or control the dynamic, to sit back and just participate.
The thing that I noticed was how badly the meal came together, how badly our time was spent, and how terribly everything was organzied. The question that I was left with, and I ask this with the goal of talking through this problem and finding a solution, is how do people organize and get things done well without some kind of heirarchy? It sounds like this is something they are good at in Scandinavian countries but its not something I have a lot of experience with living in Canada and am quite curious how things get done without some kind of organizational heirarchy. Thanks
Perhaps there is a place for hierarchy, just not exactly as we know it to be. I think of 12 step meetings as an example of hierarchy that works, though perhaps it's better described as good distribution of power. For an AA meeting that congregates once a week, there are many positions held within it to keep it going. Secretary (this role holds the most leadership, as they run the meeting), treasurer, coffee preparer, greeter, and so on. Every 6 months or so, every single one of the positions is replaced by a new person, either by volunteer or via democratic election by the group. The short time limit is great, as it ensures no one stays in their position for too long, and therefore power is distributed more equally. When everyone is given a chance to, for example, run the meeting as secretary, that combats against traditional hierarchal structure where only the leaders lead (the quietest person in the room could volunteer for this position), which helps with skill building amongst the group, critical thinking skills, forming trust and bonds with group members. Group synergy is strengthened with this structure as a whole, because group members understand exactly what is needed to keep the meeting functional and healthy. There are growing pains that come from folks taking a position they're not accustomed to, but at the end of the day, it's good for the group.
Hey Dylan, I liked your comment. Thinking about it, hierarchy is not the same a leadership. Humanity needs wise and humble leaders. I grew up in South Africa. Without Nelson Mandela’s leadership, the country would have descended into retaliatory violence after Apartheid ended. What stands out for me is that Nelson Mandela led by example. He didn’t give orders from an ivory tower. He preached peace and he acted peace.
Oppressive systems stratify human worth.
This is inherently problematic because it creates cultural narrative (i.e. lies) used to justify entitlement beliefs, and create power imbalances that are then abused. Ex: patriarchal systems lie to men about their own entitlement at the top of a hierarchical gender pyramid scheme and use circular logic (i.e. falsely attributing effects of privilege to meritocracy) to keep stratification of human worth in place. Talent is equally distributed but opportunity isn't, which means patriarchy elevates mediocre and sub par straight, white, able bodied, neurotypical men over all other intersectional talent. And here we all are experiencing the deleterious ripple effects. So much dumb.
In contrast, I define "work" as partnering to meet a community need.
A leadership role within community is not inherently oppressive because it leaves all human worth intact. Rather, leadership can be a generous contribution. It can organize effort, contribute specialist skills and strengths, and elders are often consulted for accumulated lifetimes of lived experience (crystalized intelligence).
Being a parent can also be a beautiful example of leadership via temporary stewardship of sacred space (equal worth)... or abuse of a power imbalance justified by parental entitlement beliefs (ownership of a tiny human) and neglectful abdication of sacred responsibility.
I don’t think this is about hierarchy. It’s about simply ensuring that people are properly matched to their skill level, that everyone gets an opportunity to learn different skills and no one is getting ribbons, medals, and vastly better pay for being in charge. The student aid group was clearly short of the necessary skills.
It’s going to take a total collapse of human fertility to get the rump-end patriarchy to listen to any good sense.
And it’s happening almost every where, right now.
One word: LYSISTRATA.
I find this such a depressing suggestion. The will just rape.
Indeed. But they already do that though. And it sure seemed to work in Liberia and elsewhere.
How is that different from what's going on now??
I don’t think it is terribly different.
Exactly 💯 so we have nothing to lose
Powerful mechanism for peace. I haven’t read the play but the idea is potent.
Indeed. And we have seen proof of concept in Liberia and elsewhere. The Iroquois probably had the most success with this method historically.
Fantastic stuff 😎 I am refusing to play by their rules, always have, always will. Our time is now.
Amen!
Maybe it will all work out in the end …. https://cribb.substack.com/p/hot-planet-surprise-more-women?r=n5o7w&utm_medium=ios
Indeed, it's almost like Gaia is try to tell us all something....
This is exactly what I have been thinking.