Civilisation's sex change

I had promised a note on patriarchies changing to patriarchies, and lo! I deliver. Well, I will admit that it isn't exceptionally well-thought through, but enough for me to hold it as a valid view for a while. If you have doubts, I don't mind arguing for it, so leave me your comments if you think i've not thought it through properly. I'll have to shorthand it as well (not trying to cover my tracks here...), because I know how boring it is to scroll down a page that seems perfectly well-contained on that one page.

So: the basic characteristic of a patriarchy is to rule over its litter and cajole it into obedience through strict means in order to fulfil obligations as providers for a secure future. This coercion into a strict obedience of a moral code is furthered by the sons, who, in turn, try their hardest to do right by their fathers (linked to this is the civilisational belief in the regression into base forms from illustrious beginnings). I am referring here to organised societies with a codex of norms written and agreed upon to instill bounds on personal freedoms in order for functionality and identity of the society. At first these are naturally loose, but when necessity for loyalty strikes (eg. in famine, war, particularly bitter break-ups with girlfriends, etc.), I'd log this as the beginning of the society (though it my itself recall other histories of its own identity). I won't include for why these loyalties begin, because that's too broad a topic, but they just do, but mainly cos Phil's well a dick and Mandy deserves beta.

Patriarchies not only create strong moral obligations in the men, but also in women, making them servile and compassionate above all. The more harshly enforced these are, the more masculine the men and the more feminine the women. As an aside, what strikes me as important here is that despite this enforcement of the norms, the most successful leaders are never quite 'all man' as intended. It leads me on to the point that the seeds of destruction, in this system, are not laid by the inept nature in men, but through the increasing skills of the women.

By the process of breeding and rearing/ providing and securing, the men and women become a little less active and a lot more bored. This leads to the development interesting sex lives for both partners, gardening, the discovery of self-help books and general literature for houseviwes. Prior to these leaps, however, the men learn compassion from women, the women resent them for it (owing to the perceived regression and the refusal of its bestowal upon their foetal matter) and become convinced of the notion that they have to take on the responsibilities in men (which the men, owing to their pride of place mostly). First, by masculine methods, but seeing them fail, by feminine methods. Feminine methods are much more deterministic than men - men fear what might happen if they do not act, women try not to act and spoil it by weighing up the likely outcomes. Therefore, men tend to value discipline, ascetism and fierce innovation, while women go for effortlessness (or more the appearance of/ for want of a better word), 'postive' vulnerability (or general openness) and selflessness. I don't think I can express the latter more precisely, but I do not have that point all too formulated. Slowly, but surely, the men are emasculated and the women empowered, as they each try and become one like the other.

This all develops into a world in which the matriarch is ruler - the compassionate society. Here, all bad deeds are gradually forgiven, every mistake is a step toward self-fulfilment and the possibility of change within a human being is a given. The few are chaperoned by the keen observation of the many and all are equally as inculpable as others for any social ills. I suppose an expression for it is the supreme nanny state. This is not to say it needs to be as negative as today's connotations suggest, as this would a much more pleasurable state for most people on Earth - one side feels like the martyrs, the other like the unfortunates... I don't think I would make the point too obscure if I pointed out that on the path towards this matriarchy, masculinity finds more than enough outlets - namely coersive idealism, which defines itself as the maternal ends through paternal means.

As I promised, I would offer a utopian paradise. First, toward the complete matriarchy quoted above: instead of trying by masculine means, women will need to organise themselves into pushing for the educational acceptance of their norms. We need to therefore see their 'attributes' not as weaknesses of character in either sex and become aware that virtue is not just contained in action, but also in inaction and restraint.
Second, I don't think this system is satisfactory either. There needs to be an acceptance of why masculinity comes so easily to men and why femininity to women, and let both do as their own physical dispositions order them. Then, as their own bodies begin to decline into a more equal state of masculine and feminine, they should embrace them within themselves.

Well, that is as far as my opinions stand at this stage on the point. I'm not clairvoyant beyond that point, and I am severely tired. I imagine you are too after reading all that, so my apologies to that tired finger on the scroll button.