Assuming there's no magic, how do matriachies even - you know - get off the ground?Like, is there a way for them to survive as a state instead of simply being conquered by their neighbors? I might be wrong, but I don't recall anywhere with armies of women warriors.
No.
>>92609004Men support them because otherwise they aren't getting any, and things take off from there. Just look at Tuvalu, they had a mostly prosperous matriarchal culture for many continuous centuries.
>>92609004By having men fight. The Iroquois Confederacy was a matriarchy. As for women warriors specifically they probably could but it’s not very efficient, if you lose 20% of your male population you just let men take more wives, but if you lose 20% of your female population, mostly young women you might halve your birth rate for the next decade. If you can avoid these costly wars it could work, but there’s simply not any real point.
>>92609004Tradition. Men tend to instinctively try and uphold traditions in general. The lessons of their fathers are sacred. If they were taught that women make these decisions while men make these other decisions, then that's the way it will be. The power of the matriach always hinges on the overwhelmingly male military, but this isn't that much different then any sovereign. Men still lead the army, still fight and die and make all those decisions, it just that overall political power is invested female leader, because that is the traditional way. It's that simple.
>>92609013...Do the Amazons count? I mean they were mythical, but the Dahomey were a thing, right? Though they were bad at fighting and ruled by a slave-owning King.
>>92609004Ruled by women doesn't neccesarily have to mean defended by womenAside for that, I imagine that conditions which make polyandry develop and work well could also work for creating a matriarchy. That is, very limited land and resources, meaning strict population control is required, meaning it makes more sense for one woman to have multiple husbands and be the head of family - this limits how often any of them can breed and creates smaller number of big families, reducing the land split. The men in such models generally care for the entire family - not just for their women but also the other husbands and all of the children (often they're actually brothers, but not always) and they can still be culturally required to fight and be the protectors (which would likely be the case)
>>92609058The bennies need to be relatively good, too. The Turks used abducted Christian children as slave soldiers for centuries, and they were pretty loyal because they enjoyed fairly high comfort lives.
>>92609004What, in a historical setting or a fantasy one?Fantasy is pretty straightforward, women just fight and since the universe runs on Charles Atlas rules nobody cares. If anything, anybody NOT having women fight is retarded. History is a bit tougher but it's not impossible. "Surviving as a state" is pretty vague and nebulous considering a lot of early methods of state building were very different from modern nations. Matriarchal tribes have existed, and while it obviously didn't historically happen, it's possible they could have developed into actual centralized nations.
>>92609083>Female run society where military class are abducted castrated slave soldiers.Would this work?
>>92609004>armies of women warriors Yeah that isn't what matriarchy means.Do you think oligarchy means the army is a handful of rich dudes?It's about political power.
>>92609081I kind of meant with, like, a mostly-female military I guess. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
>>92609125>no nationalism-inspired or patriotic motivation to win battlesI'm skeptical
>>92609125Despite what Game of Thrones suggests, eunuchs do not make the best soldiers. Aggression and testosterone are desirable traits in soldiers. It would be 'functional' I suppose, but you are basically fighting at a disadvantage.
>>92609143>>no nationalism-inspired or patriotic motivation to win battlesNationalism and patriotism was largely the cope people used once it became clear gibs weren't going to be a valid reason for people to risk their life anymore. For most of human history nationalism didn't exist and patriotism was downplayed in favor of other factors like religion.
>>92609083It didn't even work well for the Turks. There were multiple janissary revolts. The last one was so bad the entire system was disbanded.
>>92609148>eunuchs do not make the best soldiers.The actual Janissaries disagree. > Aggression and testosterone are desirable traits in soldiers.No. Discipline is.
>>92609152Nationalism existed, it was just far more limited in scale. To your actual tribe. And this form still exists today, just look at the Mormons.
>>92609125Eunuchs tend to be awful fightersCastrates might be nice to listen to, but fucking up with male hormons is not a great idea if you want competent soldiers
>>92609153To be fair, by that time the monkeys were running the zoo. And the squeeze was no longer worth the juice. Bad combination for a large force of professional murderers.
>>92609152>For most of human history nationalism didn't existCity-state-ism then or just tribalism in general I guess. Religious differences are a pretty common conflict though I'll give that to you.
>>92609153>It didn't even work well for the TurksIt mostly worked well, at least at first. Eventually it declined but so does everything. Most likely however a system like this would suffer the same fate as the mamluks eventually insofar that they would just take over. >>92609159> To your actual tribe.That's not nationalism. You can call it patriotisms, if you really want. But you can't really compare it to adhere to a nation state. It's like saying liking your family is being nationalistic.
>>92609004Matriarchy doesn't require women warriors, retard.
>>92609165China had lots of great eunuch generals but I suspect that it wouldn't be a good plan to castrate every dude you need to fight.
>>92609156That isn't true, because size DOES matter. Even in the modern era, strength is at a premium. A smaller, weaker soldier can't carry as much and has less endurance than a bigger, stronger one.Otherwise, where are the armies of short kings and pocket princes?
>>92609156Janissaries were not eunuchs. And there are other ways to build discipline.
>>92609165>Eunuchs tend to be awful fightersSource?>>92609169>City-state-ism then or just tribalism in general I guess. Not the same thing. Like I said, tribal ties are radically different from adhere to a nation state. Now, granted, City states are probably closer in spirit since it typically involves direct adhere to the concept of a city rather than a divinely ordained ruler or even just a basic patronage network. However even then a key component of it was the caste system of citizenship. Which nearly always nation states lack, at least to the same degree.
>>92609156>The actual Janissaries disagree.Circumcision, while awful is something completely different from castration, especially in regard of hormonal changeAlso janissaries were allowed to marry when they were 40 years old
>>92609178>Otherwise, where are the armies of short kings and pocket princes?His Majesty's Royal Gurkha Rifles.
>>92609013FPBP>>92609065Shut up. FPBP.
>>92609125>Bennies are good>CastratedI don’t see why I wouldn’t just kill the women in charge if I don’t even get balls. At least Jannissaries could get laid.
>>92609178>because size DOES matter.When people say this they aren't talking about your dick size.>Otherwise, where are the armies of short kings and pocket princes?Short kings are common place.
>>92609156Janissaries weren't castrated. They weren't allowed to have sons, though. You might be thinking of the Arab practice of completely removing male genitalia from African slaves.
>>92609137well that's retarded and you're a stupid coomer. imagine getting sensible answers and insisting on>hurrr wimmin warriors
>>92609195>I don’t see why I wouldn’t just kill the women in charge if I don’t even get balls.Because it's better living if you don't cause a fuss.
>>92609175General, so literally a guy in a tent with a map and abacus in Chinese realityAlso there could be some rare exceptions, but in general it would be an awful idea for your figting troops
>>92609125>Female run society where military class are abducted castrated slave soldiers.Why castrated, besides obvious fetishes?What would be the point?
>>92609210>Why castrated, besides obvious fetishes?Same reason they weren't allowed sons in real life. Basically trying to prevent dynastic power from being established. Obviously, they could just be banned from having kids.
>>92609203But it isn’t because I don’t even have balls
>>92609198>They weren't allowed to have sons, though.How did that work? Were they killed the moment they realized they had a son?
>>92609188The Gurkhas are actually very tall...for Nepalese men. Usually they're the tallest, strongest guys of their village. Sure, it seems hilarious to compare, but they're the cream of the crop in their homelands.
>>92609216If the society was matriarchal they couldn’t take over because they’re men in the first place.
>>92609216The simpler solution is you don't let them keep wives, and you take their kids away to be raised separately. An army of eunuchs is not going to be as effective as an army of intact men, and they're going to absolutely hate you. You're taking casualties during the 'training' process, too.
>>92609004Matriachies never lasted because men realized they could just seize power from women. Women only really have as much power as men allow them to have, honestly.
>>92609237They're still small in absolute terms, and have an outsized performance record.
>>92609204You type like you are arguing with me when you are agreeing with me.
>>92609248Untrue
>>92609261Arguably modern society is a matriarchy and even that is failing hard.An interesting read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manipulated_Man
>>92609239>If the society was matriarchal they couldn’t take over because they’re men in the first place.My point is that they hypothetically could if they were allowed to become a dynastic military class. >>92609244I guess? Basically just raise them as soldiers away from their actual soldiers.
>>92609276>and even that is failing hardCompared to, what, old civilizations?100% failure rate, anon. 100%.
>>92609322I would say that the one test that matters is the test of time.If we could travel through time, and jumped a thousand years into the future. Should we ever find living humans, what kind of society do you expect them to have?Outside of technological advancements that completely change the dynamics (for example being able to have children without needing the opposite gender) I wouldn't personally bet on future societies being a matriarchy.Wouldn't even bet on equality, desu.
>>92609354>Should we ever find living humans, what kind of society do you expect them to have?Totally genderless. The difference between male and female on the physical and memetic level having been totally eradicated. Frankly though, a matriarchal society has a better shot of surviving than a patriarchal society. Two world wars was more than enough. Only reason I don't expect it to happen is because I don't expect people to actually do what is right and strip 50% of the male population of human rights.
>>92609004>fetish thread
>>92609365I read somewhere that during the middle ages around 1% of the male population in england was executed every year. Culling the gene pool in this way was apparently beneficial and paved the way for a more high trust society.
>>92609432I'm not sure about that number, but I find it hard to believe a decent chunk of the male population wasn't wiped out by wars and political violence every few years and that had a positive effect on the genepool.
You know how when mom tells you to do the dishes you still do them despite being stronger than her? Now imagine your mom tells you to cave in the skull of anyone who won't obey her and you do it. at this point you have pretty much developed a literal matriarchy.
>>92609004What game are you talking about?
>>92609365>a matriarchal society has a better shot of surviving than a patriarchal society. Two world wars was more than enoughAre you seriously arguing that women do not conduct wars?Because it is complete bullshit, historically
>>92609453This. People on this board seem to fall back on "direct military force = power" but logistics count. If you have women directing the society, and either that society is coincidentally resource rich or the women are good at doing it then the society is probably going to expand a lot. Maybe there's something about the men being "better at war" but if the matriarchy has a significant lead in resources and fields two or three soldiers for every patriarchy soldier, then where are you?Just because a faction is militarily dominant doesn't mean its top echelons are all supermen. Nelson had one arm and one eye. Napoleon was a manlet. I highly doubt Patton was the US's champion boxer at any point. Even where people can point at trends like "oh, we have more men playing top level chess" and argue about why that is, it does not mean that ALL men can beat ALL women at chess. Judit Polgar would wipe the floor with anyone likely to read these words, and a country only needs a few big brains like that to have a huge edge. A matriarchy with reasonable natural resources and a good training culture turning out good officers and bureaucrats would be an absolute menace.
As other anons have pointed out military power is the biggest issue, assuming humans in your totally original setting are sexually diamorphic yadda yadda, see above posts. Assuming your oriental girlbosses can mount a standing defense you than have culture to contend with. If they're a deeply religious society they could enforce female rule through social pressure, fanaticism of all forms is a hell of a way to keep and maintain cultural mores.
>>92609004>how do matriarchies surviveSex TourismThe surrounding nations preserve their land because it's fun to go on a rape tour with the lads every now and then. It's a good way to get free second or third wife.
>>92609065>Do the Amazons count?They were built for raping male settlements physically and mentally. Fucking Viet Kong shit>Dahomey?The single greatest ceremonial meme unit. Put into service either from palace guards or female hunting teams to make the army look bigger, but eventually because supplemental forces. Could hold their own alongside the rest of the army but in no way were they their own force>Though they were bad at fighting and ruled by a slave-owning King.They were okay at fighting, as mentioned before. To the king’s credit, he tried to get out of the slavery business, even went to palm oil. Until he realised it wasn’t as profitable, so he went back to waging war with Africa. That was the last mistake the Dahomey ever made
>>92609041>The Iroquois Confederacy was a matriarchy.No it wasn't. It became one after colonists killed off all their adult males, but that was part of what led to it's final decline.
>>92609004>matriarchy >posts Ubel, whose defining characteristics are being unhinged abd trying to get triple teamed by a guy with cloning magic What was your message here, OP?
>>92609514>Are you seriously arguing that women do not conduct wars?Of course not. I'm saying they didn't cause two world wars. Yeah, Hillary organizing the destruction of Libya as a state was bad but at least she wasn't trying to nuke China.
>>92609545>They were built for raping male settlements physically and mentally.Hot.
>>92609570All you're telling me is that women suck at conflict as much as they suck at everything else.
>>92609592>Suck at conflictNo, that would be Austrians and they caused a world war twice.
>>92609365>”women aren’t wa- ACK”27% more likely, b8ing faggot
>>92609619>women aren’t wa-Warriors? War hungry? Wack? Wasps?
>>92609613Sounds like they're better at starting conflict than women, they just suck as much as women at finishing what they started.
>>92609224>They weren't allowed to have sons, though.By keeping them in Janissary camps and subject to military discipline. Sure they might fuck a prostitute or rape a girl on the side without getting caught, but a boy without a father is no one's son.
>>92609519>and either that society is coincidentally resource rich or the women are good at doing it then the society is probably going to expand a lot.You have a lot of conditionals, and woman aren't practical, even, and that's a big IF because what resource would they had than a male focused one doesn't, the amount of red tape it would be around would be a nightmare, because little passive agressive social games would make a tarded bureaucracy grow in no time as woman love consensus. Woman are known to be big expenders and its one of the reasons the majority of ads are directed at them, they are a lot more influenciable than males, so even if they had lots of resources it would be expended in bullshit social games, character asasination (aka weaponised gossip) and stuff like that, there is a lot of reasons there are nearly no big enterprise managed and crowded be woman, they hate each other, and the ones we have now are generally there because political reasons (like national laws making mandatory having x female in the management, or no state money). The whole matriarchy is the most over blown stuff in "social science" only competing with the bbq crowd, Iroquois had influenciable woman, but the men still ruled in all that mattered etc
>>92609662>Sounds like they're better at starting conflict than women, No, if they were good at it they would actually win.
>>92609705Either you have never met any women, or you live in a horrible parallel dimension of some kind.
>>92609004which traditional game are you discussing?
>>92609891It's pretty obvious that you haven't.
>>92609956Wanking off I imagineVery traditional one
>>92609891I worked in a old people caring center (no idea how is called in eng), and I was the only male apart of the Doctor and later the director (because a lot of drama with the fem one), as a handyman, trust me the amount of crazyness I had the misfortune to witness is staggering enough to afect a /b/tard jaded view. Woman are big toddlers and I can't imagine them ruling anything without spiraling destructive drama, that's my experience.
>>92609972>That's my experienceThen you are 100% a sexist yourself. Men are overwelmingly more childish and stupid and every female dominated work environment has been extremely pleasant in comparison.
>>92610007NTA but both of you act sexist as fuck. Numerous psychological studies have shown that in most aspects differences between individuals of same sex are much larger than differences between sexes in general. In other words yes, psychological differences between sexes exist, but they are grossly exaggerated and individual differences are much more important
A matriarchy is, in most cases, just an informal tradition of governance. Like patriarchy, it's not really purposefully created but rather a series of traditions and cultural expectations piled on top of each other.More importantly, you seem to be under the mistaken idea that a matriarchy would require women to serve as soldiers and serve as the military. Likewise, you're saying "as a state" but you're trying to impose a form of formalization of the system that comes much later down the road.So the short answer to your question is "tradition." There can be other similar things piled on there like religion as well. A culture that, say, suggests that women are inherently more wise might consult elder women rather than elder men and get the ball rolling that way. Likewise, if the woman is seen as closer to the divine than the men, you might wind up with a situation where women are in defacto control because they have a control over the priesthood. Maybe it's something as simple as leadership is determined by matrilinial lineage - as you can always be sure of who a child's mother is. There are any number of things.And then if you want to, you can build from there. Take these cultural pieces and then start moving and adjusting them into positions based on other forms of cultural change coming both from within and without.Hell, once you've built the structure you can do things like flesh out the gender roles to make them look like whatever you like.
>>92609004>matriarchiesEasy. Tons of real-world societies were matriarchal.>primary-female militaryDifferent thing entirely, probably wouldn't work.>mixed male-female militaryWould probably do slightly better than normal, due to the fact that they edge out more patriarchal societies of relatively similar size and strength in military-ready population. Depending on the time period, women aren't likely to be infantry, but there are lots of roles that women can easily adapt to, like ranged and mounted combat, skirmishers, and support troops.
>>92609148Eunuchs have historically made for frequently competent generals that authority could be safely entrusted to because they had no bloodline to overthrow the ruler for.
>>92609392lurk moreFetish threads have always been on /tg/
There is no reason to assume women would be any worse at warfare than men. Large scale conflict is only a few thousand years old and even within the broader context of general fighting theres no reason to assume the capacity for violence should be any less in women when everyone is likely to need to hunt or fight at some point. Men are larger, stronger and have a better hormone profile for being warriors and soldiers, but those are warlord traits not general traits. When push comes to shove the sly old bean counter wins the field every time
>>92609004> Assuming there's no magic, how do matriachies even - you know - get off the ground?Typically one of two ways: either the men are off raiding or hunting for most of the year, leaving the women in charge of the 'home' and that grows over time to them being the explicit leaders of the community (hard to be the ones running shit if you are never around to do so), or it becomes a matter of succession confirmation. A man can have many children with different women, including kids he doesn't know about. This makes matters of succession and heritage messy. Women don't tend to have children that turn out to be a surprise years down the road. By making inheritance/succession matrilineal you basically eliminate the risk of royal bastards entirely.
>>92610151>Yes>But no>But actually yesI'm sure you consider yourself very sophisticated and learned
>>92609004Women are capable of cruelty and rape too. Like that one failed state during the Cold War where they all styled themselves as dominatrixes with slaves. (I don't fucking know the plural for it, dominatrices?). Granted they failed because who in the goddamn fuck would want to be sandwiched between a hawkish Uncle Sam and a hawkish Uncle Ivan. Fantasy or not, just have them: Keep it strict, keep it armed, keep it regimented, indoctrination goes a long way, if you have males then you have slaves and soldiers, but they'll always be bottom rung. Isolationist, probably, don't know what they could trade except for slaves. Maybe perhaps they'd be intentionally backwards technologically so they keep themselves hidden.
>>92610137GENERALS, not SOLDIERS. Having a cool head that isn’t stewing in hormones is good for sitting in a tent with markers and maps, not tearing out your enemy’s jugular
>>92610066"Social sciences" are a scam, the best replicable studies barely get 50%. That an astrology are the same.
>>92610151Yeah, because woman are known to be emotionally stable.
>>92609004>is there a way for them to survive as a state instead of simply being conquered by their neighbors?You're conflating two different things, which is a system where women assume all the rolls of men; and a system where women rule.It's relatively easy to imagine a country that's simply the latter: inheritance is done through the female line (on the grounds that it's well possible to not know for sure who a kid's father is, but much more difficult to not know for sure who a kid's mother is). Property, up to and including titles and land (and therefore kingdoms), is passed from mother to daughter rather than father to son.You can still have otherwise normal gender roles in such a system.
>>92610287Unironically, yes. At least compared to men.
>>92610066>Numerous psychological studies have shown that in most aspects differences between individuals of same sex are much larger than differences between sexes in general. You are probably correct, I'll freely admit I probably just got unlucky with my work environments. Either way though, I always find most sexism laughable just because men are so obviously more prone to being unstable. I don't deny that differences exist, but men dominate crime stats for a reason and it's not just more upper body strength.
>>92610279Even the crappy studies definitely have larger samples than what your anecdotal evidence can provide you tard
>>92609568Got a dijon with that scenario?Daddy needs sauce.
>>92610287Men can't even emotionally control themselves into not committing 90% of crimes.
>>92609013/threadIf matriarchies could ever be a thing, there would have been at least ONE in recorded history.
The reason most states in our own world were patriarchies is that a single man can create a theoretically unlimited number of heirs, but a woman can make 1 heir per 9 months at best.If you want to have a matriarchy in your world, you need a race where children gestate for less time, and are born in greater number at a time.
>>92610328Oh yeah, because having a fuck ton of heirs was a good thing.
>>92610301Of course, when it comes to purely physical agression men indeed are statistically more likely to do it. But women aren't any less inclined to integroup conflict or negative emotions in general and when we're talking about the scale of international politics this is more important I think
>>92610326The problem with this stance is that you can point out actual matriarchies, and then you'll go "yeah but this this and this means it's not a TRUE matriarchy".But if I were to point out that, say, England has had multiple queens so it's not a TRUE patriarchy, you'd post a mile-long screed in response justifying it being a TRUE patriarchy.
>>92610335>and when we're talking about the scale of international politics this is more important I thinkI would disagree there. When it comes to international politics, making sure you DON'T just nuke Switzerland because they offended your fragile pride is the most important thing. Everything else comes secondary. Mind you, neither men or women have so far started a nuclear conflict. So, make of that what you will.
>>92609033>TuvaluThey survived because they were isolated on an island chain, not because of the "merits" of a matriarchal society. Once discovered by Europeans, it wasn't long before their matriarchal society fell under the influence of the patriarchal Europeans.So really, the answer to OP's question is matriarchies can only survive in isolation. Once they come in contact with a patriarchal society, that patriarchy will eventually absorb the matriarchy.
>>92610354>They survived because they were isolated on an island chain, not because of the "merits" of a matriarchal society. Once discovered by Europeans, it wasn't long before their matriarchal society fell under the influence of the patriarchal Europeans.Same applied to the early British.
>>92609276>Arguably modern society is a matriarchy and even that is failing hard.Except it's not a matriarchy or failing hard.>B-b-but muh tradwifeIrrelevant to the idea of a matriarchy or patriarchy. The vast majority of politicians and business leaders in the west are still men.
>>92609545>palm oil>tfw every study on palm oil says the chunky hard to use unrefined stuff is one of the better oils but the refined easy to use shit is a disaster for you health wise >tfw big oil uses this as a way to excuse not allowing palm oil farms to take over the market despite being far more sustainable
>>92610354>Once they come in contact with a patriarchal societyWestern society. Which is uniquely bloodthirsty.Tuvalu did just fine trading with it's neighbors.
>>92610371>Western society. Which is uniquely bloodthirsty.Post those not-bloodthirsty ones
>>92610381Did I say "not bloodthirsty?" I said "UNIQUELY bloodthirsty".The ones that came close were the Aztecs. Even then, the only difference between them and the Spanish ones was honesty.
>>92610371Chinese had an almost country-breaking revolt that brought millions of victims, because one guy didn't pass the mandarin test
>>92609354>If we could travel through time, and jumped a thousand years into the future. Should we ever find living humans, what kind of society do you expect them to have?A society generally similar to ours but with clear differences. A man from the Roman Republic would find medieval Europe similar but clearly a different form of government, and a man from medieval Europe would find modern Europe wholly alien. It doesn't mean shit. Societies change over time and government and social organization are due more to circumstances than any intrinsic superiority of ideals. Feudalism isn't superior to a powerful centralized state like the Roman Empire, but when that centralized state collapses having strongmen who delegate power based on a hereditary basis is convenient and more stable than a war every time anyone who owns a large plot of land dies and his retainers throw their support behind his sons over a distant sovereign.
>>92610334Missing the point.If you only needed 1 kid/ 9 months to secure a lineage, there would be no such thing as a concubine.
>>92610354>Once discovered by Europeans, it wasn't long before their matriarchal society fell under the influence of the patriarchal Europeans.Once the very patriarchal Aztecs were discovered they fell too. This isn't a good example of the failure of matriarchal societies, it's an example of the failure of isolated peoples againsst smallpox.
>>92610371You say that like it's a bad thing. History has shown that the most bloodthirsty civilizations tend to also be the most successful ones. That would seem to indicate that bloodthirstiness is actually a positive trait.
>>92610339Let's take your Queen of England example: *A* woman was in charge. Fair enough. I assumed that how we define the differences between patriarchies and matriarchies is that women or men, as a whole, are largely in charge of things. So most modern societies turned out with mostly men in charge of the significant positions of power. Now the goal post I'm setting up (and I promise I won't move it, but I can't say another Anon won't) is to just show my one example of a society in recorded history where the women where the majority in charge of all the dominant and prestigious positions of power within that society.
>>92610392Yet they are still less insanely bloodthirsty than Europeans. pretty impressive, frankly.
>>92610390I fail to see the uniqueness of Western civilisation supposed "bloodthirstiness"Unless you consider that having more effective tools of murder somehow makes you more bloodthirsty, which is complete bollocks
>>92610408>You say that like it's a bad thingDo I? I'm mostly stating it as a unique circumstance. >>92610417>I fail to see the uniqueness of Western civilisation supposed "bloodthirstiness"They will destroy any civilization they come across out of principle. Like I said, they did just fine trading with their neighbors.
>>92610413>Map of recorded battles>Somehow battles by the side that was actually able to keep the records dominate>Curious
>>92610429>>Somehow battles by the side that was actually able to keep the records dominateThe Chinese: Infamous for not keeping records. Stop copping and admit Europeans are war hungry maniacs. It's not a bad trait inherently, but it is what they are.
>>92610413>Recorded battles>Mostly western sourcesChinese for example cared little for documenting specific battles meanwhile every skirmish from 1500 onwards in Europe was documented whether it consisted of Frenchmen raiding a village in Italy or 200,000 soldiers clashing in Central Europe. If you want to see the scale of conflict see the depopulation with Tamerlane for example so horribly depopulating Persia that it took two centuries to largely recover.
>>92610422>out of principleFirst time I've heard of this, you might enlighten me about it
>>92610408To add on to this: Bloodthirstiness is also a traditionally masculine trait. So if bloodthirsty civilizations are more successful and that is an inherently masculine trait, then that would seem to go a long way to explain why it's hard to find examples of successful matriarchal societies.
>>92610440>Chinese for example cared little for documenting specific battleAnon, I can name almost every major battle of the Three Kingdoms Period off the top of my head.>>92610441https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing#:~:text=Surplus%20killing%2C%20also%20known%20as,cache%20or%20abandon%20the%20remainder.
>>92610436So what about Japanese?Were they also part of the "Western Society"?Because their goddamn islands are barely visible under those dotsAlso there is interesting lack of dots in the area of the one of most bloodthirsty empires that we know from recorded history
>>92610443I would dispute this simply because I believe in the Buck Breaking concept of western society being inherently homosexual. But at the same time, the west is uniquely bloodthirsty so I guess you can be gay and masculine and from that is born the modern west.
>>92610452>So what about Japanese?Had plenty. That is why they are covered pretty white. Sengoku Jidai, and everything. >Were they also part of the "Western Society"?Post Edo? Yes, explicitly. Before that they mostly managed to get their shit together after a MUCH more bloody history than even the Chinese.
>>92610411Clockwork.
>>92610436They really aren't. Their records are more along the lines of literature akin to the Spring and Autumn Annals or the Romance of the Three Kingdoms where everything is romanticized meanwhile European records are much more pragmatic.eg.>General Huang Hu Hue famed for his strength and genius leading 400,000 soldiers faced Duke Lu Hu Hi leading 300,000 soldiers in the Battle of the Green Lake. Huang Hu Hue cleverly led Lu Hu Hi into a trap by mounting women on horses so he could ambush his army killing 290,000 soldiers, with Lu Hu Hi being beheaded by a Polearmvs>On August 12th 1598 60 Spanish cavalrymen while foraging for supplies in the French village of La Romance near the Spanish Netherlands bumped into 82 French cavalrymen. A three hour battle occurred resulting in two dead and three wounded on the Spanish side and five dead and one wounded on the French side with the Spanish retreating.
>>92610446>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing>This article about predators killing more than they can kill, dedicated mostly to animals proves that Europeans butchered everyone they encountered!How about noAnd learn to paste links, ffs
>>92610453>Buck breakingIf that is even a real thing. The claims made about it are dubious at best and it's even more suspicious that no one ever heard of this practice until a few years ago, conveniently when technology became good enough to fake evidence that supports the claim.
Chinese history is always a doozy.
>>92610466>Their records are more along the lines of literatureNo, not all of them. We have plenty of good records from the actual Three Kingdom period itself even if a lost of the details are gone. I've got a pretty good list of most of the major battles we know that happened in history and even how they largely happened.
>>92610477And it's only one dot on the Anons map
>>92610471Henhouse syndrome, as a concept, is unquestionably a part of western culture. Western people murder and annex for the sake of murdering and annexing.
>>92610436>The Chinese: Infamous for not keeping records.They're infamous for regularly changing those records to suit their political needs. I'll never forget a couple years back when America and China were having a tizzy over Taiwan and the Chinese ambassador wrote an article, posted in the Washington Post, that began with the following sentence:>Taiwan has been an inseparable part of China for thousands of years.I found it kind of impressively brazen that the man would lie twice in one sentence. His opening sentence, even!This isn't to say that Europeans don't do the same thing, we absolutely do. But the lack of unity and cohesion among the European states kind of bizarrely helped us preserve accounts. In China, if the Emperor said this that or the other document needs to be modified or destroyed, it happened everywhere. In Europe, if the French King said this that or the other document needed to be modified or destroyed, you can bet your ass the English king would order the printing of a thousand copies of the original to be covertly distributed throughout France in order to piss off the French king, as well as preserved forever in the royal vault.
>>92610484Yes, because it happened once. Do you think all European wars were totally without cannibalism? The Thirty Year war alone was probably as, if not more, horrifying than anything going on in China.
>>92610446>Anon, I can name almost every major battle of the Three Kingdoms Period off the top of my head.>Europeans are very broodthirsty, Anons, why you cannot accept how broodthirsty they were compared to grorious Chinese?!?!Lol
>>92610495>more, horrifying than anything going on in Chinadoubt.jpg
>>92610466That's because Europeans, or more specifically the Greeks, literally invented history. As in the practice and science of researching it, studying it, recording it, explaining it, and trying to figure out what we could learn from it.
>>92610413>RecordedSo for example Indians slaughtering each other in thousands on both continents are not presentBantu genociding other black tribes while pushing south also is not present
>>92610493>They're infamous for regularly changing those records to suit their political needs.There's really only one VERY famous example of that and it happened early on. Most Emperors generally preserved records even of their failed battles. The once they would be most likely to not record are failed wars with other countries, and even then their should be records elsewhere at least after a certain point. >>Taiwan has been an inseparable part of China for thousands of years.To be fair, it basically has been as far as China is concerned. Even if their actual control was pretty loose a lot of the time.
>>92610493>I found it kind of impressively brazen that the man would lie twice in one sentence. His opening sentence, even!For the record the two lies are:1) China didn't rule Taiwan until the 1680s. Prior to that it was a collection of independent native kingdoms who were occasional tributaries of China. And technically they didn't even start conquering the island first, that was the Dutch, the Chinese only moved in after the fact. If we're basing claims to the island on which foreign power started exerting control over the natives first than Amsterdam's claim is stronger than Beijing's.2) Taiwan has factually been separated from Beijing's rule for nearly eighty years now. The Communists have in fact never ruled Taiwan. This being the case, it cannot be "inseparable".
>>92610509You should actually read up about the Thirty Year War. For half of the war "Kill every male adult peasant you came across" was standard procedure. Most of the war was fought between mercenary camps that basically went around looting, pillaging, and rapping German towns.
>>92610381tuvalu
>>92610536>So for example Indians slaughtering each other in thousands on both continents are not presentI doubt those would amount to much even if they were present.>Bantu genociding other black tribes while pushing south also is not presentSee above. >>92610516Persians, Greeks just stole it.
>>92610571>Prior to that it was a collection of independent native kingdoms who were occasional tributaries of China.To be fair, it was fairly consistent. Which is the basis for much of their claim.
>>92610590If merely having been a tributary makes you a part of a foreign power than Xi Jinping should be kowtowing to Charles III.
>>92610516>and trying to figure out what we could learn from it.China did that centuries before Greeks. Hell, the entire legalism vs Confucianism debate was basically just people deciding how history should be viewed.
>>92610498Chinese people are significantly less bloodthirsty than Europeans. Even their worst examples, like the Three Kingdom period, are nothing compared to most of European history. >>92610599Most of China used to be made up of tributaries. Either way, the difference nowadays is mostly that Charles III can't enforce his claim to shit anymore.
>>92610618>Chinese people are significantly less bloodthirsty than Europeans.They're also significantly less caring and empathic. Don't make me dig up the webm of the kid drowning in the pool and no one caring for like ten minutes.
>>92610413To be fair theres not much to fight over in central asia, russia or the sahara, north and south america had a 3000 year delay (and we destroyed all their written records), southeast asia is too nutrient-poor for large scale empires with long written histories to develop, and australia never had written language in the first place. Like, you have two dots on the whole of new zealand despite maori culture so warlike that they all lived in fortified towns and when british sailors told them about a lost island colony the first thing they did was sail there and commit a total genocide (not on the map either for some reason). Also, its immensely racist to deny the battles between aboriginal austrialians and settlers. There were genocides, you should really educate yourself
>>92610630>They're also significantly less caring and empathic. That depends more on the actual country. My own country mostly just likes to keep things orderly and clean. That's not really empathy, no more so than Singapore anyhow. The only country where I experienced noticeable amounts of caring and empathy was Indonesia. Otherwise, I would say there is a vague split between catholic and protestant places. No clue about Slavs.
>>92610653>To be fair theres not much to fight over in central asia, russia or the saharaSame is true for Greece and that never stopped anybody.
>>92610670Coastline is inherently valuable, especially in the mediteranian where sailing is substantially easier than open ocean. Not that the lower parts of greece arent productive either, and its all bundled nicely in defensible isthmuses, mountains and islands. Comparing it to central asia where there isnt enough water (or in certain places even air) to sustain human habitation is a bit dishonest dont you think?
>>92610413this is actually a map of battles mention on wikipedia( i.e battles that have a article) not every battle ever
>>92609004A matriarchy does not mean they don't have men. If the men are onboard with it by way of - education, tradition, etc. They will fight for it. Think about all the nimrod women who go up to bat for patriarchy. As for female warriors - they did in fact exist, this is /pol/bait so no example given will "count" for you but you already know they exist. These stealth politics threads are so lame god damn.
>>92609143Shit pre-modern warfare just not a thing for this guy.
>>92610475The existence and usage of the negro compliance engine has been well documented anon.
>>92610873Bro if i got to opt out of this scam fake democracy AND stay home with the kids id take it in a heartbeat. Fuck, ill take domestic abuse over a cubicle. If i wasnt being sexy for my partner then i wasnt lifting and if i wasnt strong enough to fight off some desk jockey then i deserve to get beat
>>92610715A bit, but you get my point. >>92610809Well, obviously. But it does set a clear example.
>>92610475Like I said, I dispute parts of it. Though I do think it's general assessment of western civilization is mostly correct.
>>92610974You never made a point, you just asserted that rich and fertile coastline was as worth fighting over as uninhabitable deserts. Come on, this is 4chan. Its ground zero for every dishonest argumentation tactic ever developed. You're going to have to do better than that if you want to mislead people here
>>92609004I dont see a problem. One Queen, female generals, female mayors. Men are footsoldiers, slaves, construction workers.
>>92611125The problem is the men will either be too competent and overthrow the system or too incompetent and the nation will crumble before a real one. The only way a matriarchy survives is if it's geographically isolated and even then it never thrives.
>>92610888I don't know what you're trying to say. You're not suggesting that countries that came into conflict weren't capable of outward xenophobia and inward conception of superiority pre-firearms and fighter jets?
You know there's matriarchies that exist right now, right. They're not impossible, and kowtowing to the most willing murderer is not a universal law of human politics.
>>92611275>You know there's matriarchies that exist right now, rightAnd all of them are either crashing a formerly successful patriarchy with no survuvors (Sweden) or never exited the stone age
>>92611293Oh so you only here to shitpost about your unrealistic ideologies. Truth and history aren't factors for you. My turn to make something up from whole cloth, I guess.How can you say something so dumb when the Yonic Empire still holds the entire Moon? That's more land than any Earth nation has ever held and the Helium mining makes more money than God.
>>92611275Wich ones.
>>92609004Übel sex Übel sex Übel sex
>>92611338>so you only here to shitpost about your unrealistic ideologiesProjection
>>92609004gaslight, girlboss, gatekeep
>>92610630That's mainly the CCP grindset. Also helping people in the CCP means they can turn around and sue you for damage and the courts don't really give a fuck, so they'll make you pay.
>>92611366She would be prettier if she took a shower and washed the sloth algae green out of her hair
>>92611728Highly efficient Sempai just eats her own hair and keeps on working over-time.
>>92611909I can't deny that being admirable. My waifu doesn't have that kind of utility.
>>92610354>Once discovered by Europeans, it wasn't long before their matriarchal society fell under the influence of the patriarchal EuropeansThat's because of Europeans, not because of patriarchy. Unless you can name a patriarchal society that successfully rejected European influence.
>>92610495>Yes, because it happened onceNah. Just after that time chinese stopped recording such things because they make both sides look bad.
>>92610590The whole problem with chinese tributaries is that China requested tribute from ANYONE who wanted to trade with them. Most often the tributes were just symbolic gifts to the emperor, but the fact that they existed means that China now pretends to own most of the world.Someone should give them a repeat of 1900.
>>92611248You underestimate cucks, simps and coomers.
>>92610495key difference being that while Chinese use bodies of fellow countrymen for desperate survival, Europeans use them to make luxury commodities
>>92609004Matriarchs can exist if sexual dimorphism exists, like hyenas, females are always bigger than males. But in more realist points, a society that either worships woman or the ability that females can create people can evolve to be a pseudo matriarch as they are deemed the most valuable resource.
>>92609548>it's final declineYou mean the colonist, of course. And their blankets
>>92609545>The single greatest ceremonial meme unit.t. Has never killed a War Elephant
>>92611293> nd all of them are either crashing a formerly successful patriarchy with no survuvors (Sweden)#1 in the world in quality of life rankings? That Sweden?
>>92609004They don't. There's a reason why the few examples of so called matriarchies in our real history is astonishingly rare and always short lived.>>92609033This works until men realize they can rape women.
>>92612423Yes, because it's cool to hate those who might have it better than us. This is why russia hates America and why china hates all 1st world and most of 2nd world too.
>>92612438>This works until men realize they can rape women.If the system is created on a religious basis this wouldn't work. Men are huge suckers for religions and will do the dumbest shit when religion demands them to.
>>92610495>Do you think all European wars were totally without cannibalism?Reminder that the reason why there are very few corpses from the Napoleonic wars lying around in Europe is because the Albion had them collected, ground up and exported across the channel.
>>92612277Who will get steamrolled by actual men, yes. I already addressed that you illiterate.
>>92612515They'll just make up dumb excuses, like hair sex rays.
>>92610480>I've got a pretty good list of most of the major battles we know that happenedIsn't that the point that people are making about that map graphic though? That it's only showing the major battles from China where there are actual records, and not all of the minor battles? And instead all of the minor battles show up in Europe where they did record every minor detail of as many random skirmishes as possible?
>>92609004Your thinking of a Gynocracy. Matriarchies can sorta work insofar as leadership positions are open to women if they have had children and are the head of their local clan/extended family. Millitary positions would still have to be male dominated.
This thread was moved to >>>/b/917430963
