Rasa Von Werder: Patriarchy is against Life

Matriarchal Musings 10-6-25

Behold, Schrodinger's Matriarchy

By Ajax the Great (Pete Jackson) – Comments from Rasa Von Werder

(Originally posted on the Vive La Difference! blog)

There has been a lot confusion over the years about whether Matriarchy is an "egalitarian" (equality-based) system or not, and the doublespeak from various academics (including those who claim to support it) certainly doesn't help clarify things very well. But here are three things to finally cut through this conundrum for good: 1) "philosophical razors", 2) the "equality of what?" debate, and 3) a cat. Yes, a cat! A fuzzy kitty cat! Here they are, in reverse order:

Rasa says: Lol. Matriarchy WHERE? Whose Matriarchy? Mosuos? African’s? Some Tibetan villages where women have multiple husbands?* ps in their videos the women smile more than anywhere else I have seen* Rasa’s new Village/Order? Matriarchy does not exist apart from where it’s operating – like the places mentioned or most of the world as it is. You can describe it AS IT IS in various parts of the world.

In my world, Order future Village, it will NOT be egalitarian. Men will have NO leadership roles. It is NOT some type of loose equality. Men are subordinates & that’s it – Don’t like it – leave. Go where you’ll be happy, go back to Patriarchy if it pleases you. But you will not be equals in Rasa’s world nor will you lead.

Schrodinger's Cat is a thought experiment in quantum mechanics devised by physicist Erwin Schrodinger in 1935. It is one in which a cat can be both alive and dead at the same time due to a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics. Ergo, something that may seem like a contradiction on the surface may still be true nonetheless.

The age-old "equality of what?" debate, made most famous by Amartya Sen, is also instructive here. Is it distributional equality? Moral equality? Equality of dignity? Equality of opportunity? Equality of outcome? Equality of power? Equality of position? Equality of rights (and what kind)? Equality of responsibilities (and what kind)? Equality under the law (and in what context)? Without clarifying this, the door is opened to the aforementioned doublespeak and confusion. There are indeed multiple dimensions of equality.

Rasa says: It might be easier for me to start with where men will NOT have equality: They will NOT determine our religious or spiritual beliefs, this is written out by Rasa Von Werder – nothing tyrannical, but a few items will have to be believed by all members IN GOOD STANDING, that is to say, you are NOT a Catholic if you don’t believe in Jesus as the leader. So in our Religion, you have to accept that women suld run the family & the world.

Women decide ‘right & wrong’ as far as SIN, basically speaking – although the final judgement is without a doubt, up to God. God alone knows when we intend to commit a sin, when we are confused or ignorant or gone crazy – that would mitigate sin. But there are basics of what is sin to be explained by Rasa – nothing unusual – the same as the Golden Rule, the same as Christianity or yoga or Buddhism – but with a total matriarchal slant.

Men will NOT determine the LAWS in our Village or how we judge a person guilty or not guilty by our own laws/rules. In the present world there is a terrible slant against women according to the viewpoint of men – this will not exist. Women are condemned, persecuted for sexual behavior. A woman judged a slut is given a much harsher reputation than a prudish librarian. We will not view women {or men} that way. Prostitutes will get as much of a fair hearing as the most supposedly saintly/celibate home bodies, lol.

And finally, here is a list of philosophical razors, which are "principles that "shave off" or eliminate unlikely explanations, helping to simplify reasoning and avoid unnecessary steps", per Dr. Google and Wikipedia:

· Occam's Razor: When faced with competing explanations for the same phenomenon, the simplest one is often the correct one.

· Hitchens's Razor: Any claim asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

· Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

· Alder's Razor: If an explanation requires more assumptions than another explanation for the same phenomenon, the explanation with fewer assumptions is preferred.

· Rasa says: I was told by a lawyer friend ‘Never make assumptions. How we get TRIPPED UP by all our assumptions! We see things without evidence, just face value, which is frought with too many mistakes.

· Hume's Razor: Claims must be supported by evidence equal to their magnitude; for a large claim, large evidence is needed.

· Sagan Standard: A variation on Hitchens's Razor that states "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

· Popper's Falsifiability Principle: A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, meaning it must be possible to prove it wrong.

· Newton's Flaming Laser Sword: The principle that what can be asserted without evidence can also be destroyed without evidence.

· Grice's Razor: The principle that you should assume the speaker means what they say, avoiding over-interpretation.

· Einstein's Razor: Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.

· Hume's Guillotine: Or the "is-ought problem", is the philosophical observation by David Hume that one cannot logically derive prescriptive "ought" statements (what should be) from purely descriptive "is" statements (what is the case) without an unstated or unjustified assumption.

(There are several other such razors as well, see the complete list.)

Thus, the best answer that can be given, applying all three devices, is the following one, what I call "Schrodinger's Matriarchy": Matriarchy is both egalitarian in one sense and not egalitarian in another sense at the same time. Note that this is NOT like Orwell's famous line from Animal Farm that "everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others". Rather, this takes into account that there are multiple dimensions to the question of equality, and with Women in charge, the result will ultimately reflect Women's preferences overall. So what do Women generally prefer? As a man, I cannot actually speak directly for Women of course, but from what is known from observation, they would generally prefer a free and as close to "classless society" as humanly possible. And while there would likely still be some hierarchies (more of actualization rather than domination), they would not relish and revel in such hierarchies the way men do. It would NOT be a game of "king of the hill" like patriarchy is. While certainly Women would have more power than men overall, that is about the only thing that is certain in terms of equality or lack thereof. The rest is ultimately up to them to decide in practice. And they would know intuitively from observation that the way men have done things has been a terrible failed experiment that has backfired on men as well. Likewise, attempting to keep the same paradigm but with the genders reversed, would backfire on Women, so they would ultimately follow a fundamentally different paradigm altogether if they had their way.

Rasa says: What is a man? What is a woman? What is their nature? What is the difference in their natures? Look at it this way: A man is a SET OF BALLS. Those balls contain millions of sperm. His desire or nature is to plant those sperms like seeds in as many women as possible & produce as much progeny as he can. The Old Testament is replete with men going on & on about their prolific progeny - what they will leave behind.

Now see the woman as a set of reproductive organs. She has the capacity to create a human being – which a male does not. What is her desire, vision or nature? - To nurture to protect, to raise up her child / children to become healthy, happy adults. That is what she wants, that is what she will strive for. Patriarchy is based on males wanting to impregnate as many women as possible. For that they have to get women to agree & other men to step aside. That means some type of POWER, DOMINANCE or AUTHORITY. It’s like the head of the herd, the strongest bull, that fights off the other males & gets his harem.

In the human world if a man has lots of resources he can manage many women - & he also has to have the FREEDOM to have multiple women which occurs with the DOUBLE STANDARD of sexual behavior. .

So there is the basis of Patriarchy: men fighting over women to be able to impregnate as many as possible. They make war with other men, they control women through religion, legalities & the armed forces of males – be it military or police. Their entire motivation is basically those balls wanting to release that sperm. Our present world is controlled by that desire.

The way it is today, women are the prisoners of male culture & are beginning to win some battles fighting back. It’s going to be a long war. I predict hundreds of years, maybe a full thousand, beofre Matriarchy is universal..

As Gloria Steinem famously pointed out decades ago, men's preferred shape of society is a pyramid, while for Women, it is more of a circle (or perhaps a set of concentric circles). Men tend to think in terms of "who's up and who's down", while Women tend to think in terms of "who's in and who's out". And I believe that would still be true under a future Matriarchy, where Women rule both the family and the world.

Rasa says: I know a lot of people believe this – that women do not chose a hierarchal system. But I don’t see it any other way – to run a family you have to have it, to run the world you have to have hierarchy. A Mother makes decisions, she does not take a vote every time she makes one – although at times she might confer with the Moms, Grandmothers, Aunts, sisters, female friends. But most of the time, she will manage children by herself without discussion. On larger questions there will be discussions & votes by the community – the elder women presiding. If it concerns the entire Village this would be the right thing to do.

Based on what is known from actual real-life Matriarchal societies, both historical and contemporary (and both human and otherwise too, from bonobos to lions and so on), the following concept is the most common denominator among them all, in a nutshell:

Women: more power and more responsibility

Men: less power and less responsibility

In stark contrast, under patriarchy, men largely have power without responsibility while Women largely have responsibility without power. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to see just how dangerous and toxic that dynamic is! And in "reverse patriarchy", a purely hypothetical idea that has never had any proven precedent in reality but still lives rent-free in the minds of so many fearful and benighted men (and also some benighted women who act like "men in frocks" as well), it is just the reverse, and likely just as dangerous and toxic. Whereas, in a genuine Matriarchy, power and responsibility nearly always go hand in hand proportionally to one another across the board.

Rasa says: Power without responsibility – which men have. How do they use it? To exploit women. To steal kill & destroy. To collect huge amounts of money from the pubic - decide how to spend it with most of the money going into the pockets of men – some of it just stealing, some of it providing all the services to the public with companies owned by men.

Women’s responsibility is to raise happy children – which is impossible with men abusing them so much, with men taking over all the agencies that serve children: religious agencies, medical agencie,s psychological agencies. It’s like women have to produce perfection while men cause injury to the children. Yes, injury. They don’t know how to care for children. They once killed thousands of orphans – doctors told care givers to isolate the kids, don’t touch the, except to diaper & feed them. All the kids in the orphanages died. They called it a disease of ‘marasmus’.

{On this subject please also see the all-important studies of Dr. James W. Prescott “Body Pleasure & theOrigins of Violence” also published in my book “Breastfeeding is Lovemaking between Mother & Child” – Dr. Prescott also stresses the importance of ROCKING - which these evil men erased in the orphanages.}

They Could Not Live Without Love!

https://eipmh.com/they-could-not-live-without-the-love/

During the 19th century, more than half of all infants who were left in orphanages died during their first year of lifefrom a condition then called marasmus, a word derived from Greek, meaning consumption. This illness was also known as infantile weakness or atrophy.

As late as 1920´s, the death rate of infants of less than one year in various orphanages in the United States was almost 100%.In his 1915 report about children´s institutions from ten different cities, Doctor Henry Dwight Chapin, distinguished New York pediatrician, exposed the astonishing fact that in all institutions save one, every child under two years of age died.

During the meeting held in Philadelphia, the American Society of Pediatrics, the panelists invited to discuss Dr Chapin´s findings confirmed his discovery as concordant with their own experiences. Doctor R. Hamil pointed out, with dismal irony: «I had the honor to be connected with an institution here in this city of Philadelphia in which the mortality among infants under one year of age, when admitted to the institution and retained there for any length of time, was one hundred percent.” Doctor R. T. Southworth added: «I can give an instance of an institution from New York City that no longer exists in which, in account of the very considerable mortality among the infants admitted, it was customary to enter the condition of every infant in the admission card as hopeless. That covered all the subsequent happenings”. Finally, Dr J. H. M. Knox described a study done in Baltimore: of 200 infants admitted to various institutions, almost 90 percent died within the year. The 10% that survived, he stated, seemed to do so because they were taken out of the institution for some periods of time to be with foster parents or relatives.

After recognizing the emotional barrenness of institutions for children, Doctor Chapin introduced a new system: babies were to go to foster families instead of public institutions. However, it was Doctor Fritz Talbot from Boston who, after visiting Germany before World War I, imported the idea of “tenderness and caring”, not so much in words but in actual practice.

During his stay in Germany, Doctor Talbot visited the children´s clinic in Dusseldorf, where Doctor Arthur Schlossmann, director of the institution, gave him a tour if the pavilions. They were clean and orderly; however, what piqued Talbot´s curiosity was an obese old woman who was carrying a tiny baby perched on her hip. “Who is that?” he asked, and Dr Schlossmann replied: «Oh, her. It is Old Anna. When we have given a child all possible medical care and still he does not get better, we turn to Old Anna. She never fails.”

Sadly, North America was under the influence of Luther Emmett Holt Sr. – professor of pediatrics at the New York Policlinic and Columbia University, and his dogmatic teachings.

Holt was the author of a leaflet, The Core and Feeding of Children, published for the first time in 1849 and which was on its 15th edition by 1935. During his prolonged reign, he became the highest authority on this topic – somewhat like Dr Spock in the 1960s.

In the leaflet, doctor Holt recommended the abolition of rocking cradles, not picking the baby up when it cried, feeding it by the clock and not spoiling it by too much handling –even though breastfeeding was recommended, bottlefeeding was not discounted. The very idea of tenderness and caring was considered un-scientific and therefore not even mentioned, although, as we said, the children´s clinic at Dusseldorf had begun to recognize its importance even as early as the first decade of the 20th century.

Studies to determine the cause of marasmus were not conducted until after the Second World War, after its high prevalence was discovered in infants of high-standing families, hospitals and institutions amongst babies that were receiving the “best” physical care. It became apparent that infants in the poorest of households, close to their mothers, could usually overcome physical disadvantages and thrive despite poor hygienic conditions. What high-class babies in their sterilized, scientific habitats were missing was maternal love. After this discovery in the second half of the 1920s, several pediatric hospitals introduced regular care by mothers in their pavilions. Doctor J Brennemann, who had worked in an institution with an extremely high mortality rate for infants, established a rule in his hospital whereas infants had to be held, walked in mother´s arms and offered her care several times a day.

At Bellevue hospital, New York, where this type of care became the norm, mortality of infants under one year went from 30-35 % to less than 10 % in 1938.

To thrive, it was discovered, an infant needs to be held, walked in someone´s arms, caressed, hugged, sung to,even if not being breastfed. It is this contact, the hugging, caressing, tender care that we want to point out. It is these basic calming experiences that help the infant survive and thrive. Even extreme sensorial deprivation of other senses, like lack of light or sound, can be overcome as long as sensory stimuli on the skin are provided.

They all died

Frederic II (1194-1250) Emperor of Germany, in his day referred to as stupormundi(«surprise of the world») – even though his enemies referred to him in more disparaging ways – wanted to discover what language children would naturally speak if they were brought up in silence. So he gathered infants and ordered their nursemaids to offer minimum care and not speak a word to the babies, as he wanted to determine if the children would spontaneously speak Hebrew, the older language, or Greek, Latin, Arab or maybe their parents´ tongue. It was a meaningless task, as all the infants died. They could not survive withoutthe caressing, the smiles, the words of their mothers or even their nursemaids.

In the words of Salimbene, 13th century historian: «They could not live without the caresses…» This observation is the first know comment about how essential touch and physical contact are for children’s development. With certainty, the importance of skin contact was known well before that.

Doctor Harry Bakwin, one of the first pediatricians to support maternal care for hospitalized children, wrote: «In the young child, tactile and kinesthetic sensations seem to be the most important. Infants will immediately calm when they are caressed and given warmth, while they cry in response to painful stimuli and cold.”

Ashley Montagu
From his book “Touching. The human significance of the Skin.” Avon – 3^rdrevised edition

https://archive.org/details/touchingthehuman000913mbp/page/n23

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

As the prophet Leland Mellott once succinctly predicted, "Women will manage everything. Men will manage themselves". BINGO.

Perhaps mutuality is an altogether better concept than the vaguely-defined concepts of "equality" or (especially) "equity." It is clearly far more intuitively understood, more in line with what Women truly want, and certainly jibes much better with what the late, great Buckminster Fuller famously called the "feminine paradigm of leadership".

Ditto for the timeless and fundamental concept of the dignity of the human person, which thoroughly transcends gender, race, creed, class, ability, and any other demographic differences as well. And Women have historically been far better at recognizing and honoring such dignity, while men have been far more likely to honor it in the breach.

There are likely many such models, and many such paths to the realization of such models, of course. But whatever way is chosen in any case, it is best for it to develop organically from the bottom up. Even though it is self-evident that, at the same time, we will clearly also need Women to occupy the highest levels of power, politically and otherwise, as well for a precondition to Matriarchy achieving full fruition, acting as Guardians of Liberty as well as placeholders of such positions to prevent men from taking over again, God willing.

Ajax comments:

I would also add: this article makes use of "four-valued logic". Whereas, one is not limited to the strict true/false binary of "two-valued logic", but there are also two other possibilities in addition, namely, that something can be both true and false at the same time, and that something can be neither true nor false.

Another good concept to add would be "suzerainty". People often tend to think of sovereignty as a binary, but it need not be. Suzerainty is a sort of middle ground between sovereignty and non-sovereignty. One could say that under Matriarchy, Women would have sovereignty over *themselves* as individuals, and men would have sovereignty over *themselves* as individuals as well, but Women would additionally have suzerainty over men (and not the other way around).

Tuesday, 7 October 2025

What's In A Word? On Suzerainty

By Ajax the Great (Pete Jackson) – Comments by Rasa Von Werer

(Originally posted on the Vive La Difference! blog)

In a recent article, "Behold, Schrodinger's Matriarchy", I had tackled the question of whether Matriarchy is in fact egalitarian or not. The short answer could be summed up in the following three points:

1. Matriarchy is both egalitarian in one sense and not egalitarian in another sense at the same time. (Hence, the nickname I gave it, "Schrodinger's Matriarchy")

2. Women would have more power and more responsibility, while men would have less power and less responsibility.

3. And such a paradigm of society would be mutually beneficial for both Women and men in both theory and practice.

But I had indeed forgotten that we also need a word that describes such a phenomenon well. There are almost no words in the English language or any other modern language that really do it justice, save for one, albeit a rather obscure one at that.

Enter suzerainty. Per Wikipedia, emphasis mine:

A suzerain (/ˈsuːzərən, -reɪn/, from Old French sus "above" + soverain "supreme, chief") is a person, state or polity who has supremacy and dominant influence over the foreign policy and economic relations of another subordinate party or polity, but allows internal autonomy to that subordinate. Where the subordinate polity is called a vassal, vassal state or tributary state, the dominant party is called the suzerain. The rights and obligations of a vassal are called vassalage, and the rights and obligations of a suzerain are called suzerainty.

Suzerainty differs from sovereignty in that the dominant power does not exercise centralized governance over the vassals, allowing tributary states to be technically self-ruling but enjoy only limited independence. Although the situation has existed in a number of historical empires, it is considered difficult to reconcile with 20th- or 21st-century concepts of international law, in which sovereignty is a binary concept, which either exists or does not. While a sovereign state can agree by treaty to become a protectorate of a stronger power, modern international law does not recognise any way of making this relationship compulsory on the weaker power. Suzerainty is a practical, de facto situation, rather than a legal, de jure one.

Current examples include Bhutan and India. India is responsible for military training, arms supplies, and the air defense of Bhutan.

While the word is typically used at the macro level, especially in the context of international relations, there is no reason why it cannot also be used at the micro level as well between people (of different genders, in this case). "As above, so below, " as the saying goes.

Note the very important nuance baked into the term. (Sometimes the term "sphere of influence" is also used as an almost-synonym, although the latter is generally a weaker and less hierarchical term.)

People often tend to think of sovereignty as a strict binary, but it need not be. Suzerainty is a sort of middle ground between full sovereignty and non-sovereignty. One could say that under Matriarchy, Women would have sovereignty over themselves as individuals, and men would have sovereignty over themselves as individuals as well, but Women would additionally have suzerainty over men (and certainly NOT the other way around). Men would thus be vassals relative to Women.

Or as the prophet Leland Mellott would put it: "Women will manage everything. Men will manage themselves". In other words, suzerainty.

So let's spread the word, far and wide! SUZERAINTY!

Rasa says: Ajax, you are obviously much more educated than I in certain areas – such as politics & world culture, so some of what you say goes over my head.

I can only state what I know, believe to the extent I understand. Like ‘old Anna’ in the piece about ‘They can’t make it without love’ I understand what love is – I understand what caring is & I understand the damage men have done & how their criminal behavior has tainted the world, polluted it as badly as Chernobyl. Yes monsters are born due to the radiation / energy men have put out. Their crimes have lived on in the psyches of people - turning them into things they should not be. Abuse, neglect, cause self damage like drug addiction, depression, suicide & leads some to commit violence & homicide.

This is not exactly what you’re talking about, but I’m not capable of responding on the level you speak – I haven’t studied that type of work. But I’m glad you’re introducing things from your POV, it’s new, it’s different – many people will learn from it & you present it in the most intelligent, concise, well thought out & written manner. So thanks for your major contributions to the cause of Matriarchy!