[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.28300674 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

How would a matriarchal society/nation work? Realistically speaking, no Amazons, the military is still dominated by men. How would women obtain government and social dominance then maintain that social/economic/government dominance?

>> No.28300698

If women traditionally have power, then every time some guy says that this sucks, everyone should have equal power, then a bunch of conservative guys will shout him down.

>> No.28300708

>The whole government synchronizes their periods

>> No.28300721

Obamacare death panels and the thought police arresting hardworking taxpayers and sending them to Benghazi on the say so of the atheist feminist liberal Muslim Zionist homosexual conspiracy

Made possible by Dumbocrats removing GOD from our SCHOOLS and gun control

>> No.28300728

>How would a matriarchal society/nation work?
The same way a patriarchal society would work, but with women instead of men. If you want to play up gender differences you can suppose something like "women who reach menopause are finally capable of reason for all weeks out of the month rather than most, and their minds are now objectively superior to mens'."

>> No.28300735

If pic related, I, for one, welcome our new female overlords (overladies?)

>> No.28300748

You cannot put 5 or more females into the same room and realistically think they can operate as leaders. They bicker like orks.

>> No.28300753

You cannot put 5 or more males into the same room and realistically think they can operate as leaders. They bicker like orks.

>> No.28300769

Only women can own property. Property rights are passed matrilineally. A man, his property, and his household belong to his mother or eldest sister if unmarried, his wife if married. The religion reinforces this - a monotheistic worship of a female Creator who gave birth to all life and all things. That aspect of feminine divinity, that small Creation that all women do, shows the divine right of their rule.

Armies consist of large formations of slave soldiers as cannon fodder, with small stables of seasoned vets kept as both personal guard and shock troops by the truly powerful.

>> No.28300791


>> No.28300799

Be nonhuman. Human women are more conformist, less aggressive, and less risk-taking than men. In human societies, that makes them unlikely to be leaders ("Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" and all that). There are species with high-ranking females (bonobos spring to mind), but they have completely different social organizations.

Matrilineal inheritance has been practiced by many societies. It might make a society marginally more gender egalitarian, but it doesn't make a society matriarchal.

>> No.28300803

>Like with women through history, expecting no men rebolt
Sex must be awesome then

>> No.28300820

Well that's the problem. The nation/culture/society in question i'm trying to expand on here is supposed to be biologically human.

Are you saying human societies are incapable of transitioning and sustaining as matriarchies?

>> No.28300826

>More conformist and less aggressive
Where do you live? because women in my country aren't like that.

>Aggressive not in a despective sense,

>> No.28300844

this would mean the end of all public order, Law, crumbling stability every month. Are you insane?

>> No.28300853

Rwanda has a majority-female parliament, I think.

>> No.28300856

>Are you saying human societies are incapable of transitioning and sustaining as matriarchies?

Based on previous small-scale attempts? Yes.

>> No.28300857

Alright since this is world building theory i'll ask.

How do you make an original religion without basing it off an existing one and without it sounding silly and idiotic?

Any attempt at original religions that aren't heavily influenced by real world religions (or fantasy religions which are based on real ones anyway) ends up sounding like the flying spaghetti monster cult.

>> No.28300868

Move to Spain
>People here told me that spanish women believe they're better than men, phenomenon called "princesses"
>They expect you to do everything, pay everything, give her everything and be thankful for having such a wonderful woman in front of you
>Went there for Erasmus
No...they weren't

>> No.28300880

But it's not a women's only society.
Men are still part of this society.

>> No.28300890

Societies tend to be patriarcal because men are individually less valuable.

For example, take 2 tribes, each with 100 men and 100 woman. They get into war with each other. Tribe #1 looses 90 men, tribe #2 looses 90 woman. What happens?

Tribe #2 will cease to exist in a generation or two. It will be simply outbred out of existance.

What this means, by and large, is that men are much more expendable than woman - at least on the begginings of civilization. This also means that it is smarter to put men into high risk/high reward situations.

If all the men in a tribe fight to be the one that rules said tribe, and only a dozen or so survive and are in positions of relative power, the tribe will continue existing. If women do that, then we get the same problem - the tribe will be outbreed by the surroindings.

Taking this into account, the best way for a society to be matriarchal is if it values its individual's lives to the point of preventing too much infighting. That would mean it would be possible to have internal power struggles without loss of too much of the 'population power' that prevents it from being swallowed by something bigger.

That, however, would put it in disvantage against another tribe that IS willing to sacrifice most of its individuals for personal gory.

>> No.28300896


Well, yes. Baring some kind of breakthrough in cloning technology, any society is going to require men and women.

>> No.28300901

Tradition as a reason is stupid.

SOMETHING created that tradition - something that made enough sense to have become a tradition.

You need to figure out a good reason to have created that tradition in the first place.

>> No.28300902

>For example, take 2 tribes, each with 100 men and 100 woman. They get into war with each other. Tribe #1 looses 90 men, tribe #2 looses 90 woman. What happens?

But the OP clearly states that they're not Amazons, the military is still predominantly male.

>> No.28300903

Women are catty

>> No.28300914

I'm getting mixed messages here.

>> No.28300924

>How do you make an original religion without basing it off an existing one and without it sounding silly and idiotic?

You don't. All religions, at their core, sound fucking ridiculous when reduced to their basic concepts and then thought about for long enough.

If you want to create a viable in-setting religion, look at what edicts and controls would be necessary in the setting, then craft an in-character belief system around those. But it's inevitably going to resemble a real-world religion, because even the current big three Abrahamic ones are extrapolated from a mishmash of prior faiths and beliefs that were already in place in the cultures they expanded to.

The point of the article was, if you have women in all the positions of power, they end up fucking each other over and becoming horrifically cliquish. Admittedly, this might change if there was a shift in the balance of inherent perception of worth, but for what amounts to an essentially human species, that's not going to happen. Women are always going to be seen as the more valuable, and hence less worth risking, of the two genders, and so they get kept out of dangerous situation (which includes leadership, because if they're in charge they might risk themselves).

>> No.28300935


Can you name the origin for every tradition that takes place where you live? Could you do that if you lived in a society that hasn't develped modern scientific anthropology and history?

At some point, traditions just become soemthing that always has been and don't require some elaborate or even accurate or reasonable backstory beyond that.

>> No.28300939

And how would you make a predominant male military without giving it power?

If the military is too strong and decides to take the power, it does so. If the military is too weak compared to other parts of society, early on you might end up falling prey to other civilizations.

Said civilization would have necessarily to have a female part in the military - a part large enough to be able to keep the society matriarchal.

For that to work, it would either need to be somewhat isolated, or have had settled somewhere that has a very strong advantage over neighboring civilizations. Big enough that it could outgrown them enough that you are able to use the 'quantity has a quality of its own' idea.

>> No.28300941

It's ovaries

>> No.28300942

Look to Iceland. Most all of the people are in power, are women, It's not even tradition or a gender thing, it happened because all the men who fucked up and had to be replaced, were all the men, so the only people to take over were the women.

>> No.28300946

>At some point, traditions just become soemthing that always has been and don't require some elaborate or even accurate or reasonable backstory beyond that.

And that's how you get wise guys coming in and doubting tradition, which leads to movements seeking to eradicate the tradition. Not exactly a good way of maintaining it, is it?

>> No.28300955

And that is why i think that *all* tradition need to be questioned. Most of it doesn't make sense anymore.

But all of them did have a reason to be created.

>> No.28300959


This. People constantly misunderstand what a matriarchy means. It doesn't mean rule by women, it means rule by mothers and grandmothers. You know, the matriarchs of society.

Unfortunately too many peple have some dumb war of the genders mindset that prevents them from understanding stuff like this and instead going on dumb rants about them feminazis every time this conversation pops up.

>> No.28300961

>Said civilization would have necessarily to have a female part in the military - a part large enough to be able to keep the society matriarchal.
>For that to work, it would either need to be somewhat isolated, or have had settled somewhere that has a very strong advantage over neighboring civilizations. Big enough that it could outgrown them enough that you are able to use the 'quantity has a quality of its own' idea.

I don't know why but the thought of an army of crazy women rushing at the enemy army, tying them down and raping them for the purpose of breeding more soldiers suddenly came to mind.

>> No.28300966

>Only women can use magic
There, now you have a society were women are the leaders and the army (dominated by men) can't overthrone them

>> No.28300970

> flying spaghetti monster cult
Real religons are also incredible strange. The only reason we except it, is because it hangs around since always.
You could into the mythology of several cultures and then decide which route you want to go.

Normaly its eiter
A: Polytheistic with a bunch sky dudes fucking around and eventually creating the world and mankind. See Northe (odin smashes ymir and builds the world from is dead body), Greek (Zeus fucking everything that walks) and Egyptean (I don't remember exactly but there was sex and murder too all the time) mythology.

B: Polytheistic with more animalistic gods. More common with shamanistic ways. Siberians believed in a raven that layed an Egg which hatched the world for example. Aztec also has more animals in it.

C: Monotheistic with one big sky daddy. Islam, Chistians, Jews. You know the stories.

D: One Philosopher dude that walked around and told people to stop being major dicks.
Bhuddists, Konfuzianism and maybe Taoism.
They have gods and demons too, but generaly you try to life after what this one guys said.

Generaly for fantasy settings Version A with skydudes fucking around till they accidently the world makes the most fun. Or B because both can be made very interesting with many different aspects.

>> No.28300980

Iceland did evolve from a patriarchal society. And now it is not matriarchal - it is a gender equal society where woman are in positions of power for now because the men that were so before were stupid.

I think that the point that OP wants is a society that was from its roots Matriarchal.

>> No.28300995

Well, when you're a kid and you have problems you always turn up to mom or grandma. Remove the rebellious teen ages and they you have 2 wise person that remain this way until you reach adulthood.

>> No.28300998


We're talking worldbuilding here, not some abstract philosophical argument about how you should approach tradition. There are traditions that have survived for thousands for years in societies without anybody really knowing how they came to be in the first place, which shows that it's perfectly OK to handwave away the origins of traditions in a setting.

>> No.28301001

That's because of democratization, modernization and the availability of technology. Though technically they're still not a real matriarchy.

Regardless, you cannot just 'establish' a matriarchy say in the medieval era like Iceland without millions upon millions of prerequisites.

>> No.28301007


It wouldn't need anything other than a different mindset I don't think. It just has to be a society that values mom's judgment more than dad's for whatever reason. Maybe men are considered shiftless and wild, where women are considered grounded and steady; so even if it's still the men ranging out to do things away from home, the women run the home and by extension the men that return to it.

>> No.28301014

I had an idea to base a race on naked mole rats. This might give you some ideas.

>> No.28301016

Really? Because I think OP specifically asked for what I provided.

>How would women obtain government and social dominance then maintain that social/economic/government dominance?
He's asking how a patriarchy could become a matriarchy.

>> No.28301024

I tend to do it slowly and research relevant, similar religions. Also, read philosophy, especially modern stuff, which will tend to be written for your virgin ears. Aquinas's arguments are neither clear nor convincing to the modern, so go for, say, Feser if you want some of them.

Remember, real-world religions are a hodge-podge of contradictory crap, so work through the religion, coming up with important elements and tacking them on later, then trying to syncretize them with what's already done. That's how real world religions were made.

Also, try to come up with original elements for the religion's position on basic theological tidbits, like "what is the soul?" or "what is good?" Figure out what YOU believe so you can do something different.

>> No.28301025

You must give them something to overpower men. Men ruled over women due physical power, women need to have something like that...

>> No.28301029

>And how would you make a predominant male military without giving it power?

Very fucking easily. Militaries are predominantly made up of young men, yet there has never been a single society where young men were primarily calling the shots. It's always the elders who run things, both in military and civilian society, so why have the young men as a rule not just killed of the relatively helpless middle-aged and geriatrics and ruled themselves? I mean, it's almost as if there are other forces at work besides mere physical capability at work here.

This alone should show why this objection is really, really dumb.

>> No.28301037

Society is war waging similar to Rome or Sparta, and it is governed by the elder council. The council is made from women who are too old to give birth and men who are too old to participate in wars.

After decades of wars and high casualties in armies, there is less and less elder men, and over time it's starts to be a tradition that women handle the goverment while men lead and participates in wars.

>> No.28301046


>> No.28301070

Power vaginas that think on their own and can overpower a grown man?

>> No.28301082

Uh...you could say that...

>> No.28301092


How about all of them at once?


If you have a question about how religion works in a roleplaying setting, the answer is almost always to go read up on Glorantha. The whole setting is basically built on religious studies and cultural anthropology and gives a damn good example of how this shit can be done really, really well.

>> No.28301141

So they operate like ants?

>> No.28301171


>> No.28301263

>And that's how you get wise guys coming in and doubting tradition, which leads to movements seeking to eradicate the tradition. Not exactly a good way of maintaining it, is it?

Dude. Christianity is still around today solely on the back of tradition. It survived the enlightenment, when a bunch of very educated people actively promoted skepticism and a huge percentage of educated people told organized religion to go fuck itself. Fuck, it did better than survive. Lots of our early presidents were critical of the bible, organized religion, and many Christian doctrines. That shit does not fucking happen today. Sure, you might disagree with those things, but you keep your mouth shut because it's fucking dangerous for a politician to piss off the fundies.

Tradition can survive reason. Easily.

>But all of them did have a reason to be created.

Not really. A lot of cultural elements are basically random. They happened because they happened. Some of them have reasons (i.e., there exists some problem that the tradition solved), but those reasons could have easily lead to different traditions (i.e., different solutions to the same problem) and which one we got was basically just a matter of chance/luck. And some of them definitely have no reason at all, and the best you can say is "someone cool made it popular, fuck if I know."

>> No.28301360


>> No.28301418

>Realistically speaking, no Amazons, the military is still dominated by men.
I don't see why. Infantry and spec ops surely should be dominated by men, but modern tanks, jetfighters and gunships could really benefit from women hirh reaction speed.

If the word is even more scy fy with power exosceletons and other shit to make natural strength and endurance irrevelant, women would be on even ground with men even in infantry.

>> No.28301442

Women make the best pilots for war robots


>> No.28301474

I have not been given any reason to believe otherwise.

>> No.28301479

Psychological differences.
>But those are 100% the result of cultural conditioning, you bigot!
Sure they are.

>> No.28301489

How about an extenssion of the "women take care of the home".
Like in Japan , the man brings in the money, but the household finances are the domain of the wife, who gives the husband an allowance (yes, it's a generalization, deal with it).

>Women manage the "small family" within the "small home"l
>Expand this to the "big family", a.k.a. society and and the 'big home" -> government.

Men go get resources (through hunting, farming, war, mining, etc.) and do physical work because women are too weak to do it. However, being more social, they know better of the needs of the "big family" and so manage this aspect of society and divide the resources according to what is needed (making sure enough food is stored for winter, taking care of the sick and elderly, etc.). They also manage the big home: making sure roads are in good shape, that the pipe works correctly, calling in men to repair where and as needed.

The genders are very codified and unless a man is handicapped in a way the prevents him from doing physical work, he will not want to do a "pussy job" that does not require his manly strength. They laugh at other people and civilizations because their "pussy men" are holding female (ruling positions) and wonder how the fuck they could let a weak woman be a breadmaker as she does not have the strength to knead (sp?) dough.

The military is a mix of the two genders, but lower foot soldiers are exclusively males, and higher hierarchy (generals) are women; but in between, you get a gradual mix of men and women. Of course a high male general is not gonna have a lot of respect from his more macho foot soldiers, and a low rank women is gonna have trouble being taken serisouly.

>> No.28301495

They sort of are, dude. There is nothing wrong with that, why is it a problem for you?

>> No.28301505

This society could probably work, OP don't mind the sexists sexless NEETbeards on this thread. They are mixing their inability to see the real worth of women with muh determinism

>> No.28301519

Possibly the best theory in this thread.

>> No.28301525 [SPOILER] 

>Cynthia, what are you doing?
>I am making bread. I have seen far off lands and I now know I wish to bake.
>BUT WHY! Its unnatural You are a woman, fit only for economic management, foreign diplomacy and complex feats of higher order thinking, why would you sully your hands in flour and water, aping the ways of men.

>Because... I NEED THE DOUGH

>> No.28301534

Sort of, is right. Nature and nurture both shape character a lot. It is not 100% nurture. My problem is that 100% nurture is the official party line and has been since Locke, despite being obviously and demonstrably false.

You ever teach a class of 15 7-year-old boys? It's a very different experience from teaching 15 7-year-old girls.

>> No.28301568

They simply wouldn't. The closest thing to a matriarchal society there has ever been had the political sphere totally dominated by men. (I need to find my source on this). Women just aren't suited to decision-making matters on that scale, simple biological fact. Even if, say, >>28300721 happened, the resulting society wouldn't last long because women are not good rulers overall - they are capable of leadership in some ways, and some ways better than men, but not enough of them to justify overall command.

That said, it's important to note that in pagan societies, girls and old women, or crones if you will, had powerful says, more powerful than small boys and old men. A small girl, sometimes the daughter of a king, would sit on councils to cast a powerful vote of innocence on certain issues, and >>28300728 notes in passing the reality of post-menopausal women's powerful judgement - a woman's intuition without hormonal cycles to disrupt logic is a powerful asset to the community, and whenever an old woman spoke up people would listen. But women themselves had, well, almost total power over the domestic sphere, but none politically.

>> No.28301574

0-5 teacher/minder here, he's right. Their are gender divide things that, in general, come inherrent with said gender. They arent hard and fast rules and shouldnt be treated as such, but I've noticed trends

As for the thread, a matriarchical society in one of my worlds is run by mums and grandmums, grand mums being a sort of super mum. The society is driven forward on the whips of nagging and passive agressive motions, and the menfolk have after hundreds of years of this generally come to agreement that its better just to do what the women say.

>> No.28301589

Chances are that the peasantry largely didn't give a damn about gender when it came to working the farm. Pre-industrial times you'd want as many warm bodies out working the field as you could get.

Honestly, this system probably got started because the women in ancient times it was women that tracked the movements of the heavens and listened to secrets of the seasons (because a woman is "made to receive" or so). As time goes on the invent a way to record the information for the ages and that ends up with a class of literate women which then spirals outward into other areas.

>> No.28301592


>> No.28301602

. . . I . . . don't understand what this message is supposed to achieve? Are you trying to big up or undermine my point? Or just troll the thread?

>> No.28301606

It's a sobrave.jpg troll.

Someone will bite though.

>> No.28301618

>any year
>women tracking movements in the heavens

>> No.28301623

i think it's the point that stating 'biological facts', especially with no sources, tends to cause a shitstorm.

>> No.28301627

>How would a matriarchal society/nation work?
It'd basically remain in a hunter-gatherer or early agricultural stage. If an already advanced civilization turned matriarchal it would collapse. If as a subset of a larger civilization, a matriarchal community would basically consist of ghettos (see: modern black communities, which are matriarchal).

Matriarchy doesn't work because society is built on the labour of men. Men don't work hard unless they have children to provide for, children they're certain are biologically theirs. In a matriarchy, where promiscuity is rampant and no man really knows for sure whose children are his, there's no incentive to work hard in life. You can see this in the Mosuo people in China or the aforementioned Black people in America. In both cases the men do very little work because they have no idea which children are theirs. Accordingly, these societies remain stagnant forever.

Fact is, patriarchy is so common because patriarchy just works way better.

>> No.28301631

Girls are raised very differently from boys though. Honestly we would need to do some experiments of questionable ethics (raise a group normally, raise a group with both genders being raised by male norms, raise both genders by female norms, raise a group with neither, raise a group with reversed norms, etc) to tell much.

>> No.28301663

Make them have a group of expert assassins and exceptional paperwork. Soldiers start to rebel. anyone who showed the barest hint of leadership capability gets a poisoned knife to the neck.

>> No.28301671

See, you're making 100% nurture the default position that must be disproved.

Look at other mammals, and you'll see a lot of sexual dimorphism in their behavior, especially in our closest relatives, the chimps. Look at the consensus of practically every culture and philosophy on the planet before the Enlightenment, and most of them today. It'd be less ludicrous to assume it's 50/50 until we do your unethical experiments.

>> No.28301681

That's gonna do wonders for your ability to deal with any hostile neighbouring countries.

>> No.28301683

Assassinate them too.

>> No.28301689

>They sort of are, dude.
Watch Hjernevask. It absolutely trashed the ridiculous idea that gender differences are cultural and not biological.

>> No.28301691

>Men don't work hard unless they have children to provide for

Ignoring the fact that single men typically work longer hours than married men for 400, Trebek.

>> No.28301703


Um excuse me but the proper term is Biotruths.


>> No.28301707

>Let none know the secret truths, and let the entire religion be based on it.

See the congregation? They gather for masses and consult the priesthood for advice, but they don't know shit. They're told "do this; don't do that," but they're never told *why*. Some, usually children, question these reasons. NEVER QUESTION THE REASONS.

See the clergy in their robes? Yeah, they've been baptized, ordained, taken vows, drank the kool-aide....and *they* don't know shit, either. They're kept in the dark and fed a whole bunch of conflicting bullshit that doesn't make any sense, and *told* that most of it *is* bullshit but *some* of it isn't, and they've just gotta have *faith* and cleave to the *spirit* of the teachings and not seek the *truth*.

See that old priest with the hint of that sardonic smile cracking his face? He's starting to get it, but he *still* doesn't know shit.

See that high and mighty bishop? Okay, *he* gets it: the *entire* religion is all just a bunch of made-up *bullshit* that's all lies, but they're good-intentioned lies designed to produce a sense of mystery in the clergy and guide them to do good instead of evil.

See that cardinal who looks like he hasn't had a good night's sleep in years? That's because he *hasn't*: he's *actually* begun to get it, and he doesn't like it: it turns out the jumbled mythos is a carefully crafted "program" running on the zeitgeist of the clergy keeping unnameable demons out of this world by the very faith of the people within it, and if he or any other member of the rest of his mysterious religion fails to do their job properly then those demons are going to rape the world with chaos *tomorrow*, so you can imagine why he looks so careworn, doesn't answer your questions, and has no compunctions about anything less important than keeping the whole thing going so the seal remains in place for just one more fucking day.

>tl;dr: feed them every flavor.

>> No.28301713

You're so fucking full of shit, wow.

>> No.28301715

>But those are 100% the result of cultural conditioning
Nope. Men are stronger, tougher and more diverse, and women are faster and have higher pain threshold because of EVOLUTION.

>> No.28301719

I am saying its both, but until we have a hell of a lot more data we cannot make any reasonable conclusion as to the amount of either and specifically how they interact. Also go look at bonobos, who are just as related to us as chimps.

Though this could just be my own feelings getting through because I'm a woman who growing up found it a hell of a lot easier to get along with boys my age than girls and I'd say I wasn't raised in a way that lead to either norm, my grandparents just let be what I'd be while keeping me on level ground as it were. Of course I also have a fuck of a lot more testosterone than most girls, so that may have something to do with it.

>> No.28301728


I'm sure that pre-enlightenment culture and philosophy were the be-all end-all on the human condition. What's modern biology, psychology and anthropology compared to some dudes who believed in fairies and dragons?

>> No.28301734

Well, that's a shame. But the point stands. I should really save the damn links for the sources I have, but then it should just be common sense. I'll get some common misconceptions out of the way:

A) Women are perfectly capable of being very intelligent, and is a prized asset for anyone to have, male or female. I am not saying, before anyone daftly accuses me of it, that wimin r stoupid.

B) Nor are women lacking in morality, like some people say. No gender is evil, get over it.

As I stated earlier, small girls and old women have good judgements, for opposite and equal reasons (innocence and experience) as well as a general reason (intuition). The only problem is literally the women bit of life inbetween those points. A functioning womb is simply too much of a strain for anyone to put up with and deal with long-term, far-reaching and other-person-concerning choices. A constant state of hormonal flux is not conducive for clear and incisive thought, however intelligent the brain. It's way teenage boys have the least power of any group in society, because their heads are just horrendously messed up.

The last point is another point about european pagans. A man would be required to consult his entire family, children included, whenever he casts a vote. The man, who isn't either developing or coping with an organ that bleeds for nine days and refuses to die, is essentially given the responsibility of rendering his family's ideas in coherent form. It's a power, and a responsibility, and if friends of the family suspect the man of twisting his family's words they are open to challenge him (though this does lead to fist-fights).

>> No.28301768

There's no tradition of marriage: Men are supposed to go around and Fuck whoever consents without commitment, the woman's family keeps the child, her brothers help raising him or her.
This structure enforces hard matrilinearity and does away with the institution of fatherhood while preserving a clanlike society. It would embrace abortion even late term through erbary remedies (witches's arts) or sacrifice of unwanted children but male homosexuality would be a political crime.
I doubt it would last as a relevant important big civilization in real life, except perhaps as a really isolated one but fantasy is fantasy.
What were you thinking for their aesthetics, OP?

>> No.28301770


"I'm not saying that wimmin r stoopid, but y'know, wimmin are stoopid"

>> No.28301778

>A) Women are perfectly capable of being very intelligent
Inteligent - yes. Highly - no. Women have too low phenotipical diversity to produce enough top-high intelligent and ambitious people to form a government, scientific society or other intelligence class currently dominated by men .

>> No.28301792

PMS is not that bad and most of the mental condition associated with it are psychosomatic.

>> No.28301796

This is true. There are fewer retarded women but also fewer genius women. Female reproductive strategy does not reward people with risk-taking, bold mindsets. It rewards people who're safe and cautious. Not achievers.

>> No.28301798

ITT: Male neckbeards justifying how they are innately better than females.

>> No.28301805

How many women are religious?

How many males believe in Bronze Age sky wizard cults and phony gods intended to oppress the population via superstition?

Open your eyes Sheeple, the only rational option is atheism but I guess dumb males like you wouldn't understand how to think without the big man in the god house telling you how

>> No.28301818

I'm more surprised that no one is freaking out at >>28301719 claiming to be a woman

>> No.28301821

>Genetics scare me I'm a special snowflake

>> No.28301830

Why should we? This isn't /r9k/. We're arguing against matriarchy because it really doesn't work, not because we hate women (we don't).

>> No.28301831

>Ctrl+F "Sparta"
>One result
I'm disappointed in you, /tg/. OP, you're basically describing a society somewhat like ancient Sparta. The women run the government while every able-bodied man is in the army. How do you feel about them having vast swarms of slaves/indentured servants to do the grunt work?

>> No.28301844

>>the only rational choice is atheism
>>mfw i'm Aquinas, bitch, gb2 your nunnery.

>> No.28301849

>... Can't comprehend the proof his trying to show...

>> No.28301850

There's something to be studied here.. Something that some women may not want to admit to or acknowledge as true, but it's almost like female humans have an in-built instinct to compete with each other in a non-physical way. When put into a community, like a workplace, they seem to instantly default to destroying each other's social standing and worth.

Some sort of in-born need to escalate one's self as the most valuable and worthy female of the group? I mean, it's stupid bullshit /fit/ talk, but most species do have a sort of alpha, beta, omega hierarchy instinctually ingrained in them... Even if we were to miraculously put women in all seats of power, thing would likely default to the known outcome, much in the way that if you took a bunch of random wolf pups and raised them in isolation from other wolves, that they would still default to a pack hierarchy.

>> No.28301851

the problem with this statement, of course, is that all the 'proofs' are put forth by the people who have the most to gain from making sure women aren't inducted into the highest levels of society.

Regardless of "muh feminisum" the culture of most aristocratic societies (scientific academies, academia, politics, etc.) is designed to rebuff any attempt by an outsider to enter it, regardless of what kind of outsider it is. Women are just one more kind of outsider the scientific community isn't interested in allowing into their ranks. Add to that social pressures from among women themselves, and being a top ranked scientist is exceedingly unappealing to women because the amount of effort that is required to prove oneself an order of magnitude more difficult than for men.

>> No.28301856

Look under the male section, which is relevant here (I don't know why that stuff is circled, think it's someone showing areas where marriage doesn't drive down a woman's productivity) and note that the married column has larger numbers indicating more work.

>> No.28301857

>OP, you're basically describing a society somewhat like ancient Sparta. The women run the government while every able-bodied man is in the army. How do you feel about them having vast swarms of slaves/indentured servants to do the grunt work?

Thank you for opening my eyes.
If i had known all along that Sparta is the best example, maybe this thread wouldn't be so full of angsty comments.

>What were you thinking for their aesthetics, OP?
What do you mean by that?

>> No.28301861

The worst thing you can do with attention whores is actually give them attention.

ESPECIALLY about being whores.

>> No.28301869

Except in Sparta women didn't direct shit. 300 politically corrects away the fact that had Leonida's wife tried to influence his policy he would have beaten her to death.

>> No.28301872

And men are aggressive, what the flying fuck is the difference?

>> No.28301876

>Women are just one more kind of outsider the scientific community isn't interested in allowing into their ranks.

The scientific community is mostly a legitimate meritocracy. It's not a boys only club, and any notion that owmen are somehow kept out but other men who don't want them to study the natural word is a bullshit excuse by lazy women who tend towards low-skill careers and lifestyles.

>> No.28301878

Put a bunch of men together with no women around and they will cooperate completely.

>> No.28301879

I'm anything but a special snowflake.

This doesn't have much to do with genetics. Males and females have 22 pairs of autosomes which are indistinguishable, and a pair of sex chromosomes, 3/4ths of which are indistinguishable.

Really, the Y chromosome doesn't do anything except express male sex.

There are physiological differences due to different amounts of hormones during growth, and that may result in some psychological differences, but genetically, males and females are basically indistinguishable.

>> No.28301881

I am proud of you /tg/, you maturing. If at a glacial pace.

I don't think its fair to say that matriarchy couldn't work or compete with a patriarchy, its just that one would need something to give it a competitive edge, likely a hold over from more egalitarian hunter-gatherer times that selects for ambitious, assertive women. Nature does give you menfolk an advantage, but its not insurmountable that it can't be overcome provided it gets started before male-dominated culture achieves hegemony. Then again if a matriarchy managed to achieve cultural hegemony it'd probably coast on for a while with a lot of inertia before it managed to equalize or flip.

>> No.28301906

Sparta was matriarchal because essentially every able-bodied man was in the army. They usually kept the helots in line, because Spartans shat their pants at the mere idea of a helot rebellion (With good reason, at times they were outnumbered three to one), but would regularly march off to war all together, leaving the women to run the country. From wikipedia, Laconic Phrase:
>When asked by a woman from Attica, "Why are you Spartan women the only ones who can rule men?", Gorgo replied, "Because we are also the only ones who give birth to men."
You might remember Queen Gorgo as the wife of Leonidas, who was leader of the Spartan forces at the battle of Thermopylae. And that, my friends, is how you do a matriarchy.

>> No.28301909

>Women are just one more kind of outsider the scientific community isn't interested in allowing into their ranks.

Oh wow.

You believe that?

I don't see you skanks crying that there aren't more female truck drivers, coal miners, crab fisherman, or bomb disposal units.

Maybe try applying yourself, for once.

>> No.28301913

>I am proud of you /tg/, you maturing. If at a glacial pace.
No, /tg/ has always been like this, shitposter.

>I don't think its fair to say that matriarchy couldn't work or compete with a patriarchy
See: >>28301627
You need productive men for a successful society. Productive men are men with children they know are actually theirs.

That's why every matriarchy EVER has had women do most of the work, because the men would rather just chill. Why bother working to provide for some kid you don't know is yours? In a matriarchy, the only work men do is stuff that entertains them, like hunting.

As a female I'd assume you don't really know what it's like to worry about that because you're always assured that your children are yours. Men aren't.

>> No.28301914

How do you want this civilization to look?
It helps a lot in defining the details of a society and of its uses. It also help if you have some civilization to use as a starting point.

>> No.28301917

Thread is derailing of topic
>still the best idea in the thread.

>> No.28301920

>If i had known all along that Sparta is the best example, maybe this thread wouldn't be so full of angsty comments.


>Ask a question about gender power relations on any level
>didn't expect -4 str on /tg/

Asking these questions on the internet is begging for the opinionated to come out of the woodwork.

>> No.28301926

I meant >>28301489

>> No.28301927

Those elders were young men once, and presumably had experience in the relevant field. That, and middle aged men are still perfectly capable of fighting.

>> No.28301931

OP, if you would like one actual example, here you go:


>> No.28301943

A matriarchy doesn't have to include women sleeping around. And yes, men would have to be productive. Of course prior to the industrial revolution, women also had to be productive because farming is tedious goddamned work.

>> No.28301952

I was thinking because they aren't built for competition they would be an isolated hermit kingdom. There are men in many roles but women would form the majority of the literati, the women also form the majority of the merchant class and trading is a traditional woman's job. The military would focus on ranged combat and asymmetrical tactics, with both male and female leaders. The queen will be a meritocratic position judged on the ability to lead and control the population.

I had Egypt in mind but now that people have mentioned it, Sparta is probably the better basis.

>> No.28301960

>A matriarchy doesn't have to include women sleeping around.
In practice, however, it does, because there's no one to tell them otherwise and it seems to be their natural inclination. You'll find that all matriarchal societies wind up including female promiscuity and low male productivity.

This is why no matriarchy has ever become an advanced civilization and why advanced civilizations that become matriarchal invariably decay or collapse.

>> No.28301966

I thought we were better than /r9k/ at this, come on.

I expected more rational and logical deductions.

>> No.28301983

We are not talking about what did happen here, we are talking about what could happen and if you are going to suggest that a matriarchy is simply impossible you might as well concede that alien life is impossible just because we haven't seen it.

Also, civilizations invariably decay or collapse regardless of what gender rules.

>> No.28301986


"The large majority of women know their children's fathers; it is actually a source of embarrassment if a mother cannot identify a child's father.[9] But, "unlike many cultures which castigate mothers and children without clear paternity, Na children induce no such censure".[9] At a child's birth, the father, his mother and sisters come to celebrate, and bring gifts. On New Year's Day, a child visits the father to pay respect to him and his household. A father also participates in the coming-of-age ceremony. Though he does not have an everyday role, the father is nevertheless an important partner."

Via >>28301931

>> No.28301991

No one wants to do that. I mean why bother when we have biotruths to tell us what to think and all.

>> No.28302005

Well, until the invention of agriculture women had relatively equal rights. If you look at modern hunter-gatherer tribes it's still the case. Women (gatherers) can actually generate more food than the me (hunters). The only reason they need hunters is for a proper protein supply. Once we started farming, forming familial clans, and going to war for resources they were relegated to a secondary position in society. Then industrialization happened and they had the opportunity to be as valuable to society as men were, but they had to fight ~10,000 years of tradition and are only now becoming equal.

>> No.28302016

It pretty much has. Else you get the concept of fatherhood. And that inevitable leads to Men controlling the family for no other reason that they do the hardest/most dangerous work and have more at stake.

>> No.28302020

Stop getting so fucking caught up on what HAS happened.

>> No.28302022

Think of armies throughout history. They were predominantly made up of working class, young male soldiers and upper class, old male officers. The gentry, the nobility, the royalty were always in charge.

So in a matriarchal society you could have it so that the males are conscripted or recruited into the army whilst the women become officers simply by nature that they are the ruling classes.

You can do this at any level of society too. Women in tribal periods are typically the head of the household. Men may go off and hunt, but the woman calls the shots on how food is divided and how the home is run; stuff like that. These women then decide to band together and elect a chief and you have females in charge of a society made of male hunters.

Beyond the hunter gatherer stage this society just sticks and those women born of the chief inherit the chief's stock and land and call upon the men to fight for them. As time progresses women call themselves Kings and have female barons and lords who in turn recruit male peasantry (who stopped hunting for food and started farming it). An interesting thing is what happens to warrior classes (like Samurai, Knights, Citizen Hoplites/Cavalry) because these are born of upper class men who like to fight. Perhaps they still exist in the fact that a Lord's husband would be expected to become part of the warrior class. Maybe you would get female warrior classes but the whole "men are physically stronger than women" does has some basis in humans, so that's more difficult to justify (but not much). You certainly wouldn't get a virgin woman warrior class, because being nobility without an heir and going off to risk your life is retarded.

Finally, you can look at officers raised from the ranks. These would be men, and universally hated by their fellow officers not because of their gender but because their social rank is far far lower than their military rank, which is simply not on, even by today's standards.

>> No.28302026

We were on quiet off-days.


>> No.28302032

When it comes to females, /tg/'s about as good at rationale and logic as they think the average woman is.

>> No.28302050

>>uses society in wich the father is a second hand concept as an example of women not sleeping around in a matriarchy
I'd say remembering who you fucked about 9 months ago when you conceived your child instead of "it could have been anybody lol" would be the barest minimum for someone that sleeps around. Its evidently considered a Great example of restaint today.

>> No.28302054


>> No.28302058

Woman can serve just as well as skirmishers and massed archers. Especially if you put them on horse back.

Also a woman that has been properly fed since childhood is going to be better off than a man who hasn't been properly fed since childhood.

>> No.28302078

>implying men only work hard if they know who their children are
>implying a matriarchal society won't work because men don't know who their children are and therefore won't work
>when shown a matriarchal society where fathers know who their children are, makes non sequitur


>> No.28302079

We're speculating on a fantasy civilizations. On what am i supposed to base my speculation if NOT on real civilizations? LSD trips?

>> No.28302085

Make the vagina bearers the stronger, more aggressive sex. Done. It's that easy.

>> No.28302094

Not basing your speculation on what we know has happened as though that's the only thing that can happen.

>> No.28302097

They couldn't use as powerful of bows, and their endurance is less.

It's hard to gauge true female strength potential though because in addition to their natural disadvantage, women don't exercise with the idea of building muscle mass like men do. Id say tough muscular chick is about as strong as a scrawny guy.

>> No.28302108

I didn't say anything of what you attribute to me, i'm saying that once you get the Father as an important figure in family life, he'll control it. So if you want a matriarcate you have to eliminate or neutralize the concept of fatherhood.
Will you stop making strawmen now?

>> No.28302109

Well, you said there were reasons why a matriarchy wouldn't work and none of them are actually inherent to matriarchy, so if you solved those issues you could potentially have a function matriarchal society. Then you extrapolate from there. Though your own biases seem to be getting in the way so oh well.

>> No.28302111

>They couldn't use as powerful of bows, and their endurance is less.

I don't think the average bow is that hard to draw, only specialized bows required high amount of strength. And women have much much higher endurance than men, trust me.

>> No.28302119

>Chances are that the peasantry largely didn't give a damn about gender when it came to working the farm. Pre-industrial times you'd want as many warm bodies out working the field as you could get.

Still true. To this day, a ton of crops are harvested by hand and women are the majority of agriculture workers worldwide.

>> No.28302126

male hormones make you ambitious
female hormones make you emotional

only one of those is goal-oriented

>> No.28302133

I think you're confusing my posts with others people's. I'm >>28301768
and i've allways said THAT.

>> No.28302134

They can, but they're the child bearers and the head of the household, so you typically wouldn't want a woman in your army.

Armies were made of young men, with the old man as the head of the family, but in this matriarchy a young woman needs to be at home because she's of ripe breeding age. You want her there to branch your family out, make connections. Your family would have no status if it has no young women to carry it on.

>> No.28302142

Honestly OP I don't think you need to overthink this, if you just present your setting as "property and political power is traditionally in the hands of women" then I'll accept it the way I would any other fictional premise. Why not? It doesn't sound impossible.

>> No.28302144

get high, drunk, or sleep deprived. make them treat whatever ideas you get as fact. then just add history, plot, etc.

>> No.28302151

Even if you're talking upper body, the top end of the female bell curve is still far stronger than the average male. Becca Swanson topped out at benching 600 lbs.

With core strength, men and women are generally about the same.

With leg strength, men can obviously get larger, but women are generally pound-for-pound stronger due to their smaller stature.

Men, on average, are stronger, tougher, and have better endurance than females, but women who train for strength/endurance are far stronger/can go further than the average male.

>> No.28302160

It isn't. And if you put women through the same regiment of training as men for say a longbow, you'd get the same result in maybe a bit more time.

Really, a lot of people fall into the trap into thinking that men have a flat bonus to their strength when its more like men can by up their strength for a bit cheaper than a woman. So if it costs a woman 10 xp to buy up a point strength, it'd cost a man 8 or something.

Sure men will hit the desired result faster but so long as there's not a shortage of women throwing in more bodies doesn't hurt. Especially when its something like massed archers or mounted infantry which get increasingly deadly in large number.

>> No.28302175

Go find a female friend and offer her 20 dollars if she can knock you down. I understand that that's not exactly a fair argument but I think that you've deluded yourself. They are far weaker than men.

The most Ive ever seen a man bench press is 1000 pounds

>> No.28302179

this makes the most sense

>> No.28302184

Which is why you send off the younger daughters and keep the eldest somewhere safe. Which is pretty much exactly what happened with men. It's the lower status ones that are going to go off on take risks to achieve status because they dont start with it like the eldest. Assuming primogeniture of course.

Also, peasants are going to get conscripted no matter what. The female grunts are just going to get relatively safer positions because they are socially worth more.

>> No.28302191


>> No.28302214

No I didn't. I understand that the best of women are better than the worst of men (in regards to physical strength). What I'm talking about is fielding an army. Just because there are a few super sexy hulk women out there doesn't mean that women are capable of defeating men in any sort of large scale combat. Shit the military doesn't even really use them that much nowadays and we use guns.

>> No.28302224

I have received inspiration OP. Sit down and hear my wisdom. The matriarchy is run by respectable individuals of discipline, integrity and iron will. Let it be known that not once has a bitch set foot in the high halls. Nor have there been any bitches among the ranks of the matriarchy, only Overladies.

>> No.28302229

>implying a random female friend is equivalent to one who trains for strength
>trying to get me to accept this as some proof of your point

I'm a soldier and have actually fought females in hand-to-hand combat. Skilled female fighters can make up for their difference in strength with flexibility and speed. It's annoying when your perfectly executed arm bar does exactly nothing. And it's not like they're complete pushovers, and with some leverage can overpower the most muscular guys.

I'm not doubting you saw someone bench press over 1000 lbs while wearing a bench shirt. Raw is generally a better measure of usable strength, and the male record is just over 700 lbs in that case. But so? Men have higher potential, nobody is disputing that. It's just that very, very few men actually reach it.

>> No.28302236

>The upper bound of group X is greater than the mean of group Y
This is somehow groundbreaking?

>> No.28302245

I know, right?

I feel like I shouldn't have even had to say it.

>> No.28302253

>Go find a male friend and offer him 20 dollars if he can hit you with an AR-15. I understand that that's not exactly a fair argument but I think that you've deluded yourself. They are less capable of accuracy than women.

>> No.28302263


This article never ceases to make me laugh:


Read the whole thing. It's glorious.

Frankly, matriarchal societies feel too much like fetish bait to me. Unless you have something like drow society, where only the females can enter the priesthood, it's just not going to work.

So the only answer is really:

> "Magic! That's how it works - A shitload of magic."

>> No.28302267

>Skilled female fighters can make up for their difference in strength with flexibility and speed.

I don't know man, I've always read that as something fantasy writers have made up to rationalize the unfair evolutionary bullshit that women got stuck with. If you say you've fought trained women though, I'll take your word for it. Its just that personally, whenever I've wrestled or horsed around with a girl, I'm always amazed at how weak and futile their attempts to do anything are.

>> No.28302269

So long as they can be trained and disciplined to the point of being "good enough" they can boost the size of their armies quite a bit and size counts for a lot when you don't have force multipliers.

>> No.28302270



>> No.28302281

I dunno, I wouldn't. My eldest daughter will soon be pretty useless for childbearing by my youngest wouldn't, so I want to keep her around and alive. A woman of fighting age would be about 16-18 but she'd be able to bear children 3 or four years before this, so sending her off to fight will mean she's way too young to be useful or already popping kids out.

If anything, I'd want my eldest daughter out fighting because she's no longer making babies, but at this point she's likely the head of her own household.

The main thing to bear in mind is a man doesn't have to be at home to have kids. You have sex, you leave and the woman spends 9 months bearing the child and then two years nursing it.

You didn't have to say it, because its totally irrelevant. It's like saying "Duct tape is really strong" when asking you to compare sellotape and blue-tack. Sure, duct tape is way stronger than blue tack, but duct tape isn't sellotape.
(In this analogy, sellotape is women, blue-tack is men and your super-hench bitches are the duct tape. Because I doubt you'd understand it.)

>> No.28302284

That post basically amounts to
>The champions of womankind can beat the peasantry of mankind
It's not surprising that it's right

>> No.28302287

Well, "most girls" aren't martial artists. My wife isn't, and I can fold her into a pretzel.

But go horse around with a girl who practices Judo or Jiu-jitsu, and get back to me. They will be stronger than you expect, and you probably won't be prepared for their speed and crazy flexibility.

>> No.28302291

The only reason I said it was because of the post I was responding to, which had >implications

>> No.28302299

Well yeah, obviously an average neckbeard isn't going to stand up to a well trained female-martial artist. The point is, can your average neckbeard take out a female neckbeard?

His implications were the average woman wouldn't be up to scratch to use the average male equipment for a militia.

>> No.28302300

Why are you operating under the assumption that all they are going to be doing is pumping out babies?

>> No.28302310

Because men can't pump out babies, and without babies you don't have a family. Without family, you have no legacy, and without a legacy you don't have any power.

>> No.28302316

The inevitably male warriors and the more flexible rulers are not that hard to segregate.
But it is incapsulated in 'the system', movements that overthrow the system would be likely to be pro-male rights, if a woman wants to execute a coup and grab power she needs a male army.
So either have the matriarchy enforced by a religion or make it not-really-oppressive matriarchy where the men don't feel like their kept down.
Taking inspiration from the animal kingdom you could have males not really be part of society at all, nomads that travel from city to city, they don't understand money and can't read but they do form agreements with female rulers to enforce certain regimes in exchange for goods and services.

>> No.28302318

Oh believe me I'd jump at the chance.

>> No.28302335

Therefore you suggest the only thing women can do with their time is rear children.

>Without family, you have no legacy
you do realize that clans and other non-nuclear family units are a thing, right

>> No.28302338

I guess the point I'm making is that women could use that equipment were it sized appropriately and they trained appropriately.

You may see more injuries from overtraining to achieve the same level of effectiveness (this happens in the military), but they'd still be able to use those longbows effectively if they trained from youth to do so, like the men of England did.

Definitely, the average female is not as strong as the average male, but with a little training, much of that gap disappears. An army of male peasants isn't going to do jack shit against an army of well-trained and equipped females, and that army could certainly hold its own against a well-trained an equipped male army.

>> No.28302345

Which is why you do send your eldest daughter off to war when shes in her late teens. As long as she's safe, and provided she survived childhood she's going to make it to her 50s on average, there's no reason not to. Most families aren't going to have the means to set up 2nd, 3rd, etc daughters so they will have to carve out their own prestige and whatnot. And military service is a good place to do that.

It'd also be a good place to find a man assuming dear old mom hadn't picked one out.

>> No.28302357

do not send your*

I really wish I'd stop forgetting to leave out important words.

>> No.28302370

>movements that overthrow the system would be likely to be pro-male rights
But who's to say males wouldn't have rights? A revolution like that is akin to the Russian one in the early 20th Century, which won on the grounds that the army was working class and the upper classes were using that army to oppress the working class.

If the lower classes are well looked after there won't be the problem of a revolution. And even if there was, it's likely they'll put another woman in charge anyway because of the status quo. Not many revolutions put a working class soldier on the throne.

>you suggest the only thing women can do with their time is rear children.
I'm suggesting that a dead woman can rear no children, but a living woman can on her own. If men could breastfeed then the mother wouldn't need to be near the children and so would easily pop out kids and then fuck off to stab foreigners.

You're right of course, but your average (mediaeval fantasy) army isn't made of people who've trained from youth to adulthood to fight. The majority of your army is militia. And a male militia versus a female militia is a very different fight to a male militia versus a female Roman Legion.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

>> No.28302383

>If men could breastfeed then the mother wouldn't need to be near the children and so would easily pop out kids and then fuck off to stab foreigners.
Rule 34 in 3... 2... 1...

>> No.28302393

Nice rationalizing.

>> No.28302394

Assuming you're male: why aren't you doing the best you can to get yourself laid so you can get women to pump babies out for you to maintain your legacy?

If you're female, as above, but getting fucked instead.

Please answer me that, then explain why you're lying because you're on 4chan right now and doing an activity that's not explicitly designed to get your dick in a woman's cunt.

>> No.28302398

Well, if you had a female warrior class, ala bizarro-Sparta or bizarro-Shogunate, such a scenario doesn't seem as implausible.

This is fantasy, and even if it's realistic fantasy, we should get to make up societies as we see fit.

There's nothing to stop a nation from making an elite, hereditary army of females except culture.

>> No.28302405

And make sure you don't even imply a man vs woman scenario. This is a man and women society in which the power of leadership happens to go to the women. It is a stable society, the men and the lower classes are not oppressed. Social and economic disparity are at levels which will not lead to social unrest. Because at the first hints of a "girls club", "boys are toys", "men vs women" society, the problem will escalate to rebellion, the conclusion will be bloodshed, and the aftermath will be ruin. It would help the women sitting in office not bumbling idiots or bitches in heat.

>> No.28302421

It's likely to polarize into men vs women come industrialization, just like our own societies did.

>> No.28302424

What an argument.

I'm not talking about PMS. I'm talking about consant cramps and pains and mood swings that, even if mild, are infinitely stronger than those an equivalent would feel, which is zilch.

>> No.28302426

Only women are capable of using magic. Bam. Matriarchy.

>> No.28302438

Which is why I keep bringing up numbers. The number of viable soldiers you can have are drawing from just men is not as great as that of drawing from both men and women, and no one here has suggested that the army for this society is exclusively female. So assuming training and equipment of the standard medieval fantasy army, the bigger army wins the majority of the time.

>> No.28302451

>How would a matriarchal society/nation work?
Men gain status by being good at fucking and showing off with physical ability. If you're no good at fucking, you get ridiculed by both men and women and get no traction whatsoever. Men don't do things other than that because those things are unmanly. Women hold most of the power otherwise.

Anyone who challenges this system is derided as being bad at fucking and ridiculed, and if it comes to force they're killed off by the men who want to show off for the women (who tell them that these rebels are unmanly and killing them would be soooo manly) so they can fuck more women.

Women only fuck the men that attract their attention and there's no sort of marital cohesion, men can jump up ranks by ditching women and getting to higher ranked people.

The woman's side, of course, is a social meritocracy, by which I mean the most backstabbing one reaches the top.

There. A horrible society that has a reason to stick together, and puts down anyone who might rebel. There's a problem in that it's rather unstable on the female side of things - but those on the top of the heap will likely want to keep things like that, and the ones on the bottom aren't going to get enough traction to make any changes.

>> No.28302665

But /tg/ is not that rationale and logical When it comes to females, better than /r9k/, /pol/ or /b/.

>> No.28302694

>If men could breastfeed then the mother wouldn't need to be near the children and so would easily pop out kids and then fuck off to stab foreigners.

So remove the cultural taboo against men breastfeeding and let them do it. Physically, men are completely capable of it.

>> No.28302730

It pretty much has to be pre-industrialization, if it was people would have to be centralized and the nomad thing becomes impossible. Cue civil reorganization.
It's a good rule of thumb that ridiculously distopian civs are unfeasible

>> No.28302757

>Physically, men are completely capable of it.

>> No.28302764

It seems pretty fucking obvious how a woman-led military would work.

You have female officers and male rank-and-file. Women aim a sword at the enemy and yell "CHARGE!", men get to impale themselves on the other side's pikes.

Basically, any time you think it couldn't happen in real life, just think to the way feudal societies worked, and replace nobles with women and peasants with men. Oh, men have higher upper body strength, you say. That's nice, it must be very useful to you while the heavily armored women are running over you on their horses, laughing like mad as arrows plink harmlessly off them.

>> No.28302784

Men have breast tissue same as women but nursing is barely possible for the ones that can. Water from a stone etc.

>> No.28302801

It's not too hard to google up some stuff on it, but this article for instance might be of interest.


>> No.28302803

The point of men being stronger isn't that they're somehow keeping the women down with violence, it's that any ruler with a brain fills her military with men, and this is enforced by even more biological factors aside from combat capability
You can't have it be the same except with women as the warriors because nobody wants women as warriors.
The real assignment here is to make a ruling class that isn't the warrior caste.

>> No.28302813


Make the women all psykers.

>> No.28302816

Officer =/= Warrior. Warriors are morons who go around waving battleaxes and gnawing shields. You don't run a ruthlessly effective military by bench-pressing.

>> No.28302830

It takes some more work to get it going in a man, obviously, and if we're talking about feeding the baby by yourself you may end up needing to adjust your diet for it or take some other supplements, but that's about it.

>> No.28302877

Then the officers aren't really a warrior caste, they're a political one that has responsibility over the army.
They'd probably be overthrown along with the rest of the government in a civil war. While the body of the military stays around.

>> No.28302901

It IS possible, but we can't produce anywhere near as much, AND it takes a fuckload of time to get the milk flowing in the first place.

It's just not really worth it.

>> No.28303123

>the women also form the majority of the merchant class and trading is a traditional woman's job
Except major traiding, which requires ambions. And ambitions are something VERY few women can compete with men.

>> No.28303152

>Well, until the invention of agriculture women had relatively equal rights.
Except not. Patriarchal agricultural societies are called patriarchal for a reason

>> No.28303270

Which is what he said, daisy.

>> No.28303754

>And women have much much higher endurance than men, trust me.

Sorry anon, I'm calling bullshit on that. Male hormones make for a generally superior physique, that includes strength and endurance. If women really did have more endurance, they would have been the ancient hunters, due to the fact that prehistoric humans used "persistence Hunting" which basically entailed chasing an animal until it died of exhaustion.

>> No.28303889

>gtfo bitch
>i'm doing religion

>> No.28303921

>Women are faster and have a higher pain threshold

What planet do you live on anon? Even ignoring the pain threshold thing, which is somewhat subjective, man are objectively faster than women.

>> No.28303928

It's because there's no status in it.
Even though they get paid pretty well, I've never heard any woman say she wants to be a garbageman.

>> No.28303961


I don't know why people say that like its a slur. These are objectively proven biological facts, and should be taken much more seriously than "muh feminism says so" arguments.

>> No.28304012

>Societies tend to be patriarcal because men are individually less valuable.
Such things are reflected on the microscopic scale. Egg cells are fewer in number, there's only so many, and they each get a special place for themselves. Sperm cells are enormous in number, but all but one will die by the time conception occurs.

>> No.28304026

>due to the fact that prehistoric humans used "persistence Hunting" which basically entailed chasing an animal until it died of exhaustion.
Probably not true.

Persistence hunting is a terrible way to hunt, which requires disciplined training and entails a large expense of energy and high risk of injury, and is practiced by vanishingly few cultures, even among primitive hunter-gatherers.

There are about as many cultures where women do more hunting than men as there are that persistence hunt.

>> No.28304039

Pretty sure that's what DC Amazons do.

>> No.28304061

well moving past that, my original point still stands. Claims that women have more endurance than men are primarily driven by people who play too many RPGs and think that nature gives a shit about balancing that stats.

>> No.28304128

The Olympics disagree with you.

>> No.28304176


Actually no, they aren't. Men and women exhibit psychological differences as soon as they leave the womb. It has been observed in infants only a couple of days old, i.e before cultural and societal factors can ahve an impact.

watch this documentary it's a bit of an eye-opener.

>> No.28304186

corea a shit

>> No.28304199

Your science is misogynist!

>> No.28304232

to be fair to the "nurture" people interviewed, many claimed at least, to have expressed much more moderate views than the ones presented in Hjernevask, and that they were the victims of some cruel editing hijinks.

That said, doesn't make the "100% nurture", or "mostly nurture" positions any less wrong

>> No.28304244

Persistence hunting did happen, and it still does occasionally but only in very hot climates, because we use sweat to cool our bodies off which alongside the lack of hair means we can keep on going even after other mammals fall from overheating.
It isn't really dangerous... you just need to chase the pray from afar, and not loose it's trac, at a jogging pace untill it falls over.

>> No.28304270


>How would a matriarchal society/nation work? Realistically speaking, no Amazons, the military is still dominated by men

The Iroquois lodge society model sounds a bit like this. The women make the political decisions, the men go to war. The women having that decision making role is precisely because they're not busy being warriors.

>> No.28304282


Alternatively, look up matrilinealism in Africa or the customs of the Mosuo people in Asia.

>> No.28304293

Religion could be it.

Or, joining in on the tradition bandwagon (and give one explanation for it being an institution with female leaders) was that in ages past, the leadership WAS Amazons, but the society has become less and less gung-ho but it was generally believed that women just were better leaders because they have only had female leaders in their history.

And whenever someone looks at other nations with male leaders, the propaganda machine of this matriarchal nation uses propaganda to focus on the shitty male leaders and the excellent female leaders (if any) of their histories.

>> No.28304321


Moreover, women's size makes them ideal for submarine warfare. All this fuss about women on subs, if it were all women there'd be no problem. That's what reveals that it's as much about tradition as effectiveness.

And certain types of infantry fighting could benefit from smaller physiques as well. The tunnel fighting in Vietnam, we could well have used some ninety pound girls to flush Charlie out.

>> No.28304351


Not him, but if you wrestle most girls, yeah, they're not all that strong. If you wrestle Abby Wambach or Serena Williams you might have a hard time.

>> No.28304359

>90 lb. woman vs. 90 lb. man

Man still wins, love.


>> No.28304390


Note that they'd have guns. Kind of a major equalizer.

>> No.28305033

Yeah, but a women will not shot so eagerly as a man will. They have a nurture nature, not a killing one.

>> No.28305336

Then again, men are more averse to shooting women than they are to shooting other men.

>> No.28305525

No he's right

Humans would chase an animal until it was too tired to run anymore.

>> No.28305588

>men are stronger and women are more dexterious

Guys, I'm not trying to be that guy but I really don't think that is true nor backed by any scientific evidence. I mean mean have stronger bones and larger skeletal frames and that would imply that men can support more muscle growth (which they do), but I don't see anywhere where it says women are more dexterous than men,,,

>> No.28305593

If you look at what he actually wrote you'll notice that he didn't say no-one did it, he points out that it's generally a very poor choice, and thus very few bother with it.

>> No.28305605

>"due to the fact that prehistoric humans used "persistence Hunting" which basically entailed chasing an animal until it died of exhaustion.
Probably not true."

Literally, not figuratively, the first two sentences of his post m8.

>> No.28305652

It needs to be a equal trade-off with balanced stats otherwise reality would be sexist.
I say CHA because everybody is always more inclined to trust a woman, then again they're more inclined to ENtrust a man WITH something

>> No.28305676

Testosterone also promotes muscle growth.

>> No.28305685

not him, but what is the basis for your assertion that the concept of fatherhood will destroy matriarchy?

>> No.28305695

Only in European culture. Angry Sandy People are more than happy to do so. I knew a fellow who swore he once encountered a 'human APC,' i.e. a nutter who was advancing on his position by crawling down the middle of the street firing between his wife's legs while his children sat on his back.

>> No.28305704

It's actually patently untrue. Ask a neurologist about how rapidly a woman's fine motor control degrades past about age 20. It's possible to avoid it with hardcore practice, but there is a reason why so few female athletes are older than about 25.

>> No.28305729

>a nutter who was advancing on his position by crawling down the middle of the street firing between his wife's legs while his children sat on his back.

How that even?

>> No.28305748

My fucking sides.

>> No.28305807

That's horrible, being weaker than men is sort of bearable in a first-world, because when is it going to be important?
But losing your fine motor skills is a handicap in so much activities, it's pretty obvious wich gender is easy mode.

>> No.28306048

Ok here's how it goes down.
The wife is upright, and slowly moving forward.
The husband is on the ground, crawling forward. The barrel of the gun is between her ankles.
The children are on his back.
The wife and children are human shields - can't shoot from the front or you'll hit the wife, can't flank him or you'll hit the children.
It's like that comic where the crazy guy took strapped a bunch of babies to himself so that no one could attack him or even push him over.

>> No.28306203


If I was the soldier and if I was ordered to I would kill the fucker at the expense of woman dying.
Would try to not hit children.

>> No.28306255

>Ask a neurologist

Actually, since you're making the statement, shouldn't you be supporting your claim with evidence?

>> No.28306278

You say this like testosterone occurs exclusively in male bodies.

It's not an either/or deal. The difference is probably less significant than you think.

>> No.28306304

>muscle strength is the only factor in a fight

Martial arts say hello.

>> No.28306333

Except it is significant.
Look at Olympic gymnasts. The girls are all tiny as fuck (and much younger than the rest of the competitors, to link to >>28305704 this post), but I've seen male gymnasts as old as 30, and they're all ripped.

>> No.28306511

The least I could do.

>> No.28306529

If the government is matriarchal, and women are respected as powerful, why is the military still male-dominated? It's only that way IRL because women were though to be too emotionally weak for combat.

>> No.28306561

>It's only that way IRL because women were though to be too emotionally weak for combat.
And because they can't meet the physical requirements. They actually lowered the requirements so that more women could join active combat here in Murrica.

>> No.28306566

/k/ommando here, backing you up.

>> No.28306591


>> No.28306915

Oh yes, you can ask all the veterans with PTSD about how they were emotional fucking fortresses.

I'm not disrespecting in the least, but war is just hell, and it takes its toll on you mentally. You're not gonna be better equipped for that just 'cause you're a guy.

>> No.28306929

What exactly are the requirements?

>> No.28307016


Sit-ups are equal, but push-ups and the 2-mile run both have a large gap in the minimum and maximum standards.
The female amount of pushups to ace the test are the male amount of pushups to barely pass.
The female time for the 2-mile run to ace the test is just 20 seconds better than the bare minimum for men.

>> No.28307037

The simplest solution is of course to just say that they simply believe that the mandate to rule is passed down through motherhood.

It really doesn't have to be more complicated than that, and it even has some precedence in the real world.

>> No.28307166

Wow, that's... that's dumb. Like, I can't disprove it with what I have on hand, but I'm having extreme difficulty believing the average female applicant wouldn't be able to do 40 pushups.

>> No.28307195

Does it have to be a human society?

>> No.28307222

it's not aimed at averages. It's aimed at the human scum that joins the army.

>> No.28307273

The real problem with lowering the standard across the board (which is what some people want) is that the standards are as high as they are for men because soldiers need to perform strenous tasks. If you can do 71+ pushups in 2 minutes, 78+ sit-ups in 2 minutes, and run a 13-minute-or-less mile, you will most likely be able to perform and complete those tasks quickly and efficiently.

>> No.28307368

>At a news conference last month, Gen. Dempsey said: “If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary: Why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?”
>He also said the goal is to have a significant number of women, not just a few, qualify as land combatants.
This is like my high school bragging about how many more students were graduating compared to previous years, when all that happened was the administration lowering the threshold for barely scraping by.
What they got was a bunch of people with diplomas or degrees who don't actually have the basic skills they advertise.

>> No.28307978

Thats easy! I hit you in the gonads then push you over. 20 bux plz

>> No.28309097

Are you kidding me? When i get kicked/punched in the nuts the first thing I do is giggle.

Then I fucking kick the fucker's ass who just crushed my nuts, man or woman.

A "groin" hit is not always an instant KO, unlike what we've been taught by popular culture. (Then again, that's how most of us are like, but not ALL of us keel over at the first sign of pain. I like pain...)

>> No.28309305


You should read someone like Mircea Eliade.

All religions share common concepts and myths, that are all variations in metaphysical thinking and just simple human condition\experience.

Religions and spirituality become political power when tradition and ritual turn vague and no longer taps into the times.

>> No.28310322

>How would women obtain government and social dominance then maintain that social/economic/government dominance?

Enough people have to realize that patriarchal succession is pants-on-head retarded.

>> No.28310805

No man can know his father!

>> No.28313834

>Physically, men are completely capable of it.

What alternate universe do you live in?

>> No.28314135

After reading this whole thread, this is how it works. You could use religion or tradition to create the matriarchy, or you use biology. You no longer have an approximate 50/50 gender ratio. make it 80/20 in either direction. Males are either so rare you need to keep them safe always, or women are, so that in any case, individual worth is greater. Slap some religion or tradition on it and there you go. Works better if said society isn't your human/mankind analogue, so that you can justify that biological changes.

>> No.28314173

I'd like to see you last longer than a woman in bed.

>> No.28317348

I'm multi-orgasmic man, so I can fuck as longer as I want. Of course, if the women it's like a virgin and still as a wood planck, she can let an entrire army to fuck her, but if she is trying to fuck with some intensity, I can outlast her.

>> No.28319384

>On what am i supposed to base my speculation if NOT on real civilizations? LSD trips?
>>Civilization based on what you saw in an LSD trip, or possibly BASED ON LSD trips
I'd actually want to see that, if only for the WTF value.

>> No.28319401


Requires some sort of temperature and diet.

>> No.28319942

Go play some Morrowind

>> No.28321832

You said that, yet it's worked. How successful as matriarchal succession been?

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.