Right to rule?

Many men take great pains to stop women from encroaching on their ability to be in charge.

They have restricted women from being part of many professions and have used religion based upon the writings of men to control the outlook of millions to look upon women as chattels and subservient. Men have consistently posited that women don't have the mental capacity to be in change, yet women wearing co-called provocative clothing supposedly causes men to use violence and suppression to prevent being weakened by such passive displays of a women's physical attributes. So who are the weak and inferior ones here if a person's mere appearance leads to a breakdown in emotional control?

Forcing women to cover their bodies or keep silent to hide men's own inability to control themselves does not make men strong. Such fragile emotional stability, traditionally ascribed to women, seems to indicate that men may not be the masters of the universe that they think themselves to be. Perhaps it is time to put men to the side and let women be in charge? We probably would be much better off environmentally without all the giant testaments to male fragility that they have built to feed their delusion of superiority in order to compensate for their lack of real inner strength!

Tied in with the rise of the general male push for dominion, especially in Europe and its colonies, human resources were needed for the building of those male fantasies. Enter white supremacy.

This idea of supremacy was used to justify suppression and violence against other ethnicities whose cultures were not based upon rampant self-indulgence and destruction of their own environment. Racism is founded upon suppression and violence to reduce others' capacity to control their own lives, then citing that incapacity as a reason for further suppression.

This is a example of creating a self-fulfilling prophesy, but it is founded upon a delusion, and effectively undermines the claim of natural superiority. Anyone claiming such superiority is not superior but weak and self-absorbed. Such people are not fit to be in charge of the destiny of others. Means must be devoted to ensuring all have a chance to prove their worth, but without sacrificing others' ability to do the same.

Fairness and justice is only achieved by balancing individual freedom with collective well-being.

While some may call back to past empires as being examples of societies having such fairness and justice, they relied upon those being some sort of innate qualities of their rulers, with most using violence to quell political dissent. That their nations' wealth ended up in few hands shows that their systems were not truly fair, but just another veneer hiding exploitation. The idea of beneficent rulers is an oxymoron and is thus a myth to perpetuate centralised control by despots, no matter how enlightened they think they are.

Scriptures and other dogmas from the past can provide some moral and ethical ideas that we can use to understand ourselves and our past thinking, but to allow ourselves to continue to be ruled by them is to cut ourselves off from the collective wisdom and burgeoning mental capacity we have accumulated over the last millennium. We are coming to understand how we can collectively take part in the construction and direction of our societies, rather than relying upon what a few from the past decreed is what we should continue to be bound by. We know more and must be allowed to experiment with it.

Democracy seems to be the best form of societal fairness, but it must be protected against those driven by exerting their power over others as somehow being proof of their superiority. Our true strength is in being able to control our own destiny by being self-aware, and using that awareness to change ourselves. In doing that, we become more adaptable and tolerant of people's differences because we know that we and others can change for the better. That builds the type of trust in each other that really allows individuals and societies to be the best that they can be.

Any system of government that relies upon control being vested in an unelected elite, whether by birth or nomination, cannot be called a democracy. Ultimate control has to be vested in all the citizens of a nation for a democracy to be valid. Directly being involved in crucial decisions would be the ideal, but with large populations, democracy is resource-intensive to maintain, so voting should be restricted to selecting those who fill the top strategic and responsibility levels. Voting for every level of government or office over-politicises their thinking to distraction.

Thus a dedicated and neutral bureaucracy is needed to ensure the ultimate wishes of citizens are carried out efficiently and fairly. Their processes have to geared to the long-term provision of services and so those in its various roles are better not subjected to having periodically to publicly justify what they do when it should be clearly set out as the obligations of their roles. It is up to the elected high-level representatives to direct the bureaucracy to carry out the policies they were elected for. The goal is to support their citizens in having the freedom to create their own lives.