So Yas Forums I was thinking. It's agreed by anons here that matriarchy is incompatible with modernity(?), but has any user ever thought about it being a possibility that never happened?
I've been reading this thread, what do anons think? Are there any points or users on here that might have a point?
www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/under-what-conditions-could-a-matriarchal-world-have-emerged.486285/
Under Zero conditions. Women want to be lead and ruled over by man. If you look at the handfull of matriarchal tribes of today, you will see that even their the men have the true power.
The complete absence of patriarchy aka ambitious men
if women were smart, if women could invent things, if women weren't just a ball of emotional responses, if women didn't hate each other, if women weren't NPCs
and if a matriarchy was instituted, it would destroy the western wolrd
hell , we have enough of a female influence in politics that it HAS destroyed the western world
You're already living in a matriarchy.
Only a fool wouldn't realize it.
Total societal collapse.
People would have to have insect brains.
No. In a societal collapse a bunch of male warlords would take over.
We live in one right now.
You are living in a matriarchy. The West is a gynocentric system.
OP here, so what about this thread? They seem to be speaking about bonobos as a frame of reference that could have started a matriarchy but got deferred by a focus on labour-intense work that favoured men.
Does anyone see this as bullshit? And these mods too.
>In a societal collapse a bunch of male warlords would take over.
Women would instantly see just how equal they are to men.
>could have emerged
user, I...
We are in a matriarchy, most men are just too beta and cucked to realize it. Just look at all the white knighting orbiters.
Yes. By being harem sluts for the most brutal Tyrant.
this modern plea for "matriarchy" thing is kinda Bullshit... just as there were kings there were also queens with just as much power if not more... pic is Isabel la catolica she's the one in charge of the columbus expedition that formed THE biggest empire the world has ever known
matriarchy already exists, it’s just a soft power that hides behind strong power. It disguises itself as beauty and frailty. The very foundations of civilization were built so that the feminine imperative can flourish.
matriarchy is the ultimate eugenic society. men have no role and women aren't forced to mate with guys with substandard genes to fit some artificial marriage structure. Chads come and go as sperm donor to make sure the best DNA gets amplified
Under the conditions in which women would be men. But since they are women, they are not men.
If this is true matriarchic societys would be the norm all through human history. Why isnt it though????
Under conditions in which evolutionary pressure caused women to be physically and mentally suited for leadership. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species and that dimorphism involves men being physically superior to women, and mentally capable of both self-sacrifice and rational thought. The very concept of civilization is a male invention, and could never have arisen as a matriarchy unless humans were entirely different creatures.
Women have no interest in society beyond its ability to benefit themselves and their offspring. A woman is content when a man provides for her and her children, and is entirely unconcerned with anything beyond that. Society is an implicit pact between men to cooperate in order to make each of their jobs of providing for their woman and children easier. This is very beneficial for men, but is nothing to women, as it exists purely to make the lives of the men easier. Women do not care about this in the slightest, men exist to provide for them and would continue to provide for them without society's existence.
Modern society is beginning to collapse because of the breakdown of this framework. Firstly, the government is acting as a surrogate husband to women, which makes them even more willing to discard and mistreat men. Secondly, feminism is leading women to attempt to provide for themselves. While they are capable of doing this, it begins to drive them insane after long periods of time. The average woman is grotesquely unsuited to long-term work and even more so to an actual career or profession. A woman who has worked for 10 years is an emotional trainwreck and a ball of neuroses. Finally, working and discarding men has also caused them to fail to have children. This is the biggest problem, because a woman who has no children will latch on to essentially random things to act as surrogates. Cats, foreigners, character in fiction. And they act as though they are their actual children. Madness, and yet they can vote.
>Under what conditions could a matriarchal world have emerged?
the current conditions
look at the current state of the West
those are the conditions
And women can be manipulated through media etc to mate with those deemed chads. Sounds familiar.
Women would have to promise to make sure every male is sucked off and fucked on demand, that alone might do the trick really.
I guess that's meta stuff or extended phenotype . when individuals band together to create a civilization the guy on the left will beat the Chad because he has more organization, more people to field armies with
Read that link user, they offer explanations. The shift to focus on heavy labour is something that these people mention.
You're confusing gynocentrism with matriarchy. Beta orbiters exist because access to bagina is necessary for social standing among men.
Not really that far. This whole matriarchy crap would be a thing of the past the moment other pussy-whipped dudes stop participating and quit being enablers. Feminism triumphs when men partake it
Chad is genetically hard wired, no media will change what he is. Your face tells women all they need to know . There's also status which is similarity hard wired from our tribal monkey origin
Under what conditions could a dogriarchy world have emerged?
Similar principle, same answer.
if women were stronger than men
I rad all of this theories a billion of time. Those retards claim that humans where entirely matriachical until the developement of agriculture. They have Zero proof for it, but it most be true……..
What was aiming at was that media can co=op feminism to guilt globohomo: through constantly showing women to be strong and independent and favouring foreign and non-European mates, it helps pave the way to a mutt populace at a global (or for now Western) level.
'We're gonna make Europe Africa again'
without agriculture there is no civilization. Without civilization there's no property to pass down, so it doesn't matter if the kid is really yours or not
Considering no known civilization ever was, I would say no conditions outside maybe some weird disease that kills off the majority of men. The only reason women have any power is because men are allowing them it and creating and maintaining all the supports for them. The second men quit doing this, women have no self residing powers in any society, and women's "power" goes away. It's an illusion and fakery that can only be propped up by a decadent society with the infrastructures and laws in place to allow it. The only true power a woman has is the weakness men have for them.
I've been wondering the same user. I've read this thread a couple of times this week to see what was going to be said and if there would be any Yas Forums outbursts along with mod crackdown. I was waiting for a good opportunity to see Yas Forums's take on it.
>believes the monarch actually calls the shots
Lmfao!
>Comparisons of experiences with circumcised or intact males are shown in tables 2 and 3. With their circumcised partners, women were more likely not to have a vaginal orgasm (4.62, 3.69-5.80). Conversely, women were more likely to have a vaginal orgasm with an unaltered partner. Their circumcised partners were more likely to have premature ejaculation (1.82, 1.45-2.27). Women were also more likely to state that they had had vaginal discomfort with a circumcised partner either often (19.89, 5.98-66.22) or occasionally (7.00, 3.83-12.79) as opposed to rarely or never. More women reported that they never achieved orgasm with circumcised partners (2.25, 1.13-4.50) than with their unaltered partners. Also, they were more likely to report never having had a multiple orgasm with their circumcised partners (2.25, 1.13-4.50). They were also more likely to report never having had a multiple orgasm with their circumcised partners (2.22, 1.36-3.63). They were also more likely to report that vaginal secretions lessened as coitus progressed with their circumcised partners (16.75, 6.88-40.77).
>During prolonged intercourse with their circumcised partners, women were less likely to 'really get into it' and more likely to 'want to get it over with' (23.32, 11.24-48.39). On the other hand, with their unaltered partners, the reverse was true, they were less likely to 'want to get it over with' and considerably more likely to 'really get into it.'
How old were you when you realized that all american problems concerning male-female relations is explained by dick mutilation?
It does matter. Blood matters. It Always did.
There has never been a matriarchy in history
Men are bigger, stronger, and more leaderlike than women
Yes. Some folks here think that women are ruling over man today but ist not really true. In todays society women get used as weapon by man against other man.
>. A woman is content when a man provides for her and her children, and is entirely unconcerned with anything beyond that.
user have you ever talked to a woman? This is so wrong in so many levels its hilarious.
women compete for males, they are extremely competitive and ambitious, which is why you have queen bee's.
this is why you have 'dragon lady' stereotypes of a woman who is so ambitious she will whip her boyfriend into 'being something', theres even the joke we would all be living in caves if women weren't there to bitch about it.
this is pure undilluted bs born of someone who has never done much with women.
the problem with women is that the yare very emotional, but so are men. the difference is that men are expected to learn to control those things are or 'are a pussy', while women arent, if anything they are encouraged to by hyper emotional and display emotion even when they don't feel like it. because... men find it cute, vulnerability is cute. and women, wanting men, do that.
They stunt themselves, because they want men to like them, they stunt themselves out of societal norms. This is why 'being a slut' is considered (not really, most really dont think that) to be empowering, because its 'going away from what men expect of them'.
i know as many men as women, and both are equally capable. women underperform in many of those, but not by a huge degree and mostly due to what i said above. the ones that care nothing for relationships or were forced to grow due to really shit life situations? they excel in their fields.
Problem is society keeps women as children, because it wants them that way.
You live in one. You live in a society that puts pussy on a pedestal, one that builds shit to impress pussy in order to obtain pussy. One that gives free passes to pussy.
And it's protected by men in hopes that they'll be rewarded with pussy for their service.
Under conditions where the members of the human race have evolved in such a way as to reject the very notion of survival for even one more generation as silly and unworthy of pursuit. It is, in effect, a collective vote by humanity to lay down and die immediately.
we're all mutts, meaning we came from an admixture of various ethnicities as we split off thousands of years ago. evolution doesn't care about race it cares about genes. A black Chad is superior to a white nerd
get the hell out shill kike
Why did the white nerd create the internet and why does the black chad live in a mud hutt???
Agreed
Women in business do an imitation of a man when leading. They don't have a sense of guidance. They can't communicate correctly in the moment. They defer to males or opinionated females who work under them. They try to be friends with everybody instead of their leader. Which is a recipe for disaster that men comprehend in their adolescence - be strong in your opinions, not a people-pleasing bitch who changes depending on who's listening. Women bosses' personal lives are a wreck without exception. I've never met a female manager with a husband and kids, both. Even older ones, not just millennials.
The problem is that, admittedly, our current male leaders are the most unrelenting backward faggots imaginable. But I can still defend everyday males.
And why do men want that, you ask?
because we are raised, and possibly genetically driven, to be protectors. To having a purpose and that generally is, the easiest one, being in control and taking care of someone else.
this leads to that very confusing situation where a guy 'doesnt feel like a man' if she earns more than him, if she is the one in a position of power. we are fucked up in the head as much as women, due to societal expectations. let go of those, find a woman who has drive and isnt a child needing to be looked after (as much as those look cute) and enjoy your life, stop worrying about pointless shit.
Now, do i think that a matriarchal society would succeed? Eh, i think it would fuck things up as much as a patriarchal, just in different ways. theres been many women in power through history, and they tend to rule well, but also fuck up shit in hilariously bizarre ways due to all the complexes women have.
you're talking about definitions created by complex societies, not early human tribes. different species have different mating strategies. Emperor penguins are more mongomous and cooperative than many humans and monkeys
the white nerd is smarter yes but he still did it as a round about strategy to get some pussy, hopefully. A robust Chad will still be more attractive on a primal level to women the same way a hot Instagram model is to you
I theorised a society of desert-dwelling Cetacean Humanoids with a matriarchal society. The females are bigger than the males and are in control of industry and finance while the males are generally assigned to raise weaned calves and dominate the military.
Not possible unless for cultural reasons, like a religious reverence for motherhood.
Men are stronger than women. In a hypothetical matriarchy, men could overthrow the government if they really wanted to. Women facing men at battle are at a natural disadvantage that can only be overcome with a high degree of skill, which men can match with the same effort and thus reassert their advantage.
> I've never met a female manager with a husband and kids, both. Even older ones, not just millennials.
I have, im fairly high in the chain and manage and entire office, but i do have people above me, many whom are women. 1 just got married, 1 has had a divorce, and is now remarried. has 3 kids, manages 4 studios across 3 continents and is awake seemingly all the fucking time, she doesnt sleep it seems, while still taking care of her kids, and spending time with her husband. it has happened that we're in a call and she is very much cooking for her kids to go to school.
the other, only 1 marriage, both are high up in corporate food chain, they have adopted 4 kids, 4. He cant have kids, so they went for adoption, but not the normal kind, they adopt specifically the troubled kids no one else wants, and raise them together. 1 has recently finished uni and moved out so they are considering taking another one in.
this while still maintaining a high profile job.
basically, you either are pulling that out of your ass without even bothering to know them and just assume they are wrecks, or genuinely have had bad luck in your bosses.
I do agree however, that many just imitate men, but whats wrong with that? learn from those who do it well, and learn "why' they do it. i think here is where a lot of people fuck up, they imitate but dont get why.
That doesnt make sense and is kind of inefficient. You don't need to be strong to raise cows and smaller males would make worse soldiers
How? A man could just drag a woman behind some bush and rape her.
Black Matriarchy
.
Fail
yeah it doesn't. Although to be fair, it depends on the type and style of warfare.
there is a reason romans who were on average what, 5'4 dominated the known world. discipline and weapons are equalizers, and barbarians despite being bigger and stronger got wrecked the fuck out by the roman manlets. the downfall of rome was decadence, but also their predisposition to exagerate how hard their conquests were, which led to later military leaders thinking 'hey if those people are so strong why dont we hire them to fight for us?" - which they did, and this is where they fucked up, those stronger barbarians didnt have any of the discipline and collective martial power, not to mention many being 3rd columnists. so they lost.
They are pretty big creatures, the males are still bigger than Human, the females however don't dominate the military because of a slow reproductive rate, they cannot afford to loose females.
*Human Males.
and it precedes societal collapse