Not counting those pre-colonial small tribal societies that are matrilineal and give women some rights (eg. Navajo, Celts), but is actually patriachal. A true matriarchy has got to have all five:1. Political Power – Women occupy the ruling positions (chiefs, queens, council leaders).2. Lineage & Inheritance – Passed through the female line (matrilineal).3. Economic Control – Women control land, wealth, and resources.4. Social Authority – Women set social norms, lead rituals, and have the final say in disputes.5. Male Role – Men may participate, but their authority is secondary or dependent on women.
Empress Victoria once ruled 1/4 of the world's population.
>>18408554Celts, colonial england, steppe Iranians and some Germanic tribes
>>18408554No there have definitely never been any societies that satisfied all five of those criteria. You definitely had a lot of premodern societies that were gender flexible patriarchies where women had legal rights to own property and inherit that they could get judges and the state to enforce, it was fine for women to have jobs outside the home, and women from elite families could be high priests, or even be king. But they were merely given this space within a patriarchal culture and were the exception rather than the rule. Ancient Egypt for instance fits this as a highly patriarchal society with a male dominant government that nonetheless had several powerful female pharaohs.You have to remember that pre-modern states depended heavily on sustained organized violence. Male monopolization of warfare and near monopolization on political violence because men are simply bigger and stronger than women is the fountainhead of political dominance. Also while this resulted in men dying in battle more often than women, you have to remember that in premodern societies death from childbirth was extremely common which further cemented this asymmetry.Now that I think about it, I can think of plenty of female autocrats from pre-modern states, but I cannot think of a single senior bureaucrat or minister that was a woman. Some wives and concubines that had plenty of informal power from their access to the king, but nothing on the level of a formal naming of a woman as an important minister or "overseer of works" or somesuch
>>18408554Wtf I love liberalism now
>>18408562Not even an absolute monarch
>>18408632>Male monopolization of warfare and near monopolization on political violence because men are simply bigger and stronger than women is the fountainhead of political dominancemore so than that; men work in hierarchical organizations to get shit done much better. Forming strong platonic bonds of cooperation and comradeship is something women struggle with far more than men.
>>18408554I think today's western society is probably the closest, most large scale societies in the past were patriarchy or equal
>>18408554You would need military power to be number 1, if you want any of these to be possible together.Which is impossible and there are on average, 3 times as many male geniuses as there are women geniuses.So its unlikely women can fill up all these high tier positions you want. Not enough smart women for that.
>>18408554This Amazonian tribe likely from somewhere in Anatolia as described by a doctor of Cos school.>> Some tell a story how the Amazonian women dislocate the joints of their male children while mere infants, some at the knee, and others at the hip-joint, that they may be maimed, and that the male sex may not conspire against the female, and that they use them as artisans to perform any sedentary work, such as that of a shoemaker or brazier. Whether these things be true or not I do not know, but this I know, that matters would be such as is represented, provided their children, while infants, were to have their joints dislocated.
>>18409874Shoemaker? This is just ancient greeks gooning.
>>18408554Noble women in ancient Persia could manage land and other women in harems heh
>>18410418Cobbler was considered an effeminate job at that time. Still kind of is.
Matriarchy is impossible as long as women are on average physically weaker and smaller and frailer than men.Any supposed matriarchy existed on men's behalf, making it fake.
>>18411026We can change that through genetical engineering or selective breeding.
>>18411455hot
>>18411026See >>18409874Supposedly some ancient tribes of Anatolia got into their head to maim men as children so they'd go through life as invalids and second class citizens.
>>18408554There's an entire ethnic minority of trives in Southern China called the Mosuo who had always been described in Chinese sources as matriarchal, as:>They trace family lines through matrilineal descent.>The leader of a tribe is an elder grandmother chieftainess.>Has no concept of marriage. They practice(d) "Walking Marriage" where women of a tribe hook up with strangers from another tribe, have a short "marriage ceremony" fuck, get pregnant, give birth, and the Mother's tribe raises the kid as their own. The man can either stay with the woman's tribe or could just walk away (which is preferred as he is not of the tribe).>Mosuo men basically exist to just protect women, especially clan mothers. Serving as warriors and muscle-labor. >Fatherhood is non-existent, Mosuo men's immediate role models are their uncles.>Mosuo women control all economic production, including farming & (the main moneymaker of the minority) tea growing, and weaving.Funny story: when China modernized in the mid 20th Century and Chinese citizens got to know more about their country through improved education, a metric-ton of Han Chinese males heard about "Walking Marriages" and descended into Yunnan. From the 60s and 70s, Mosuo territory got flooded by sex tourists by dudes looking for mountain jungle pussy. It got so bad (especially with the AIDS Scare in the 80s) that the CCP itself had to step in & break the whole thing apart by telling Mosuo women what was happening to them and encouraging them to adopt Han Chinese marriage & dating norms.
>>18411026I'd argue the pyschological and genetic factors (XY chromosomes leading to more variation in traits) are just as, if not more important than physical strength.We know men have a much higher propensity for taking risks, and a much higher level of assertiveness/status seeking behavior. Combine that with the higher genetic variation which makes it so that the majority of people with extremely high IQs.Not to mention pregnancy, which is essential for any culture/society to survive, puts women out of commission for large chunks of their prime years.I'd argue even if women were just as physically capable as men or even slightly more capable physically, patriarchies would still be the norm.
>>18412075Let's be fair here. Besides what the feminist media says, this is not a "matriarchy" where women have primary decision-making power. Mosuo women had no control over Mosuo men. Mosuo men lived in nomadic mercenary bands, while Mosuo women worked manually and raised children alone in their homes. Men slept with women as they pleased and neither cared nor knew anything about their children, which led to "matrilinealism." In other words, what people call "matriarchy" here is simply the consequence of a society in degeneration and high sexual promiscuity where concepts like family and father do not exist, and this makes them primitive and disorganized
>>18412063>Supposedly
>>18412554>>18412075Also, the biggest lie about the Mosuo people is that they are the "matriarchal" example that feminists of the 60s created in their lunatic heads, but it's really not true. The men dedicate their entire lives to war and sleep with whomever they want. They are a promiscuous society without family values. Mosuo women raise their children alone, and political power is exercised only by male warriors and Buddhist/Bon monks. So even saying that women possess political or social power is quite false and gay.
>>18409874Amazon's were an allegory for barbarity. The exact polar opposite of civilization.
>>18412562The problem with the Amazons is that they would be biologically unviable, and these stories are always filled with mythological and fantastical biases. The archaeological "evidence" is misinterpreted and/or merely refers within a ritualistic burial context. Amazons are a living story in the minds of coomers and women with identity crises.
>>18411455Coomer
