https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=2350479019117328

https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=2350479019117328



Quote:

When men picture matriarchy we picture being dominated, because domination is the only kind of power we’ve ever been shown. So we project our own system onto them and then get frightened of our own reflection. And who decided men in charge was the safe option anyway? Look at the record. Bonobos are female led and nobody has ever recorded one killing another. Chimps are male dominant and they raid and kill. Same ancestor. The Minangkabau in Sumatra, four million people, biggest matrilineal society on earth. The men aren’t at the bottom. There is no bottom. Not one of these systems is the mirror image of ours. Nobody’s built one where men can’t own property or need a signature. So maybe the fear is quieter than we think. That we’d stop being needed, and we’d have to be wanted instead. Different design. Not a flipped one.

Can you show me one human matriarchal society that works without the force of men behind it?

Matrilineal is not matriarchal. Jews are also matrilineal.

We don't live in a society that women can't hold property.

There will never be a pure matriarchical society because all societies need a force of power to back it up and men will always be the more powerful. Example for argument, women could not rise up and kill all men and take power, men can kill all women. There is a power imbalance that nature has implanted in our species, it can't be ignored.

Edit: I'd go even further and say all female rights are given and allowed to exist by men.

'A woman is a weathercock.'
- ?
[i.e.   'a flag in a wind'.......waiting for, seeking, gain ?]


Money is the machine which drives a war, and a woman's love.
- ?

Never trust a woman, even if she has borne you seven children.
- Japanese Proverb      


Tell a woman she is fair, and she will soon turn fool.
- ?


Trust a woman's ear with anything, except that which you would keep from your adversary.      
- ?


Woman's instinct is often truer than men's reasoning.
- ?


Ecclesiastes 7:27
Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher,
counting one by one, to find out the account:
28  Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not:
one man among a thousand have I found;
but a woman among all those have I not found.



......but the average man fairs no better, by their own conduct, imo.

We are all deeply flawed.

Setanta wrote on Sep 28^th, 2026 at 10:25pm:

Can you show me one human matriarchal society that works without the force of men behind it? Matrilineal is not matriarchal. Jews are also matrilineal. We don't live in a society that women can't hold property. There will never be a pure matriarchical society because all societies need a force of power to back it up and men will always be the more powerful. Example for argument, women could not rise up and kill all men and take power, men can kill all women. There is a power imbalance that nature has implanted in our species, it can't be ignored. Edit: I'd go even further and say all female rights are given and allowed to exist by men.

Just wow. This post breaks my heart.

Firstly i'm going to say, just to get it out of the way, that you're far more representative of biological certainties granted men than you are of those granted women ... who you would have carry baby to term for men.

Do think about it.

That said, as to matriarchal and patriarchal, it helps if you define those terms. If we take it that these terms refer to power and dominion over the other gender in pursuit of absolute power, then there is no argument. There has, as far as we know, never been a matriarchal society that adheres to that definition.

Women were never that stupid.

There have been through the ages, societies that have been run by women, seen women as central to governance and land ownership and in control of bloodlines. But all this is so vague. Throughout history and from the far flung corners of the world we see people that have no genders, three genders, six genders. It's an incredibly diverse world that is filled of all sorts of people who have managed to tick along together for millennia.

For instance, in a recent paper published in Nature, which i shall link to shortly, there is evidence of "matriarchal" societies in per-Christian Europe. Of course, i could have told you this. The fertility cycle was revered by the Celts. The Goddess. Women were held in high regard, and men seemed able to restrain themselves from thumping us over the head and dominating us.

You know why? Because power is rarely about brute force alone. It's about public opinion. Then people will fight for you. In pre-Christian Europe, public opinion was that women had worth and that the fertility cycle was the central tenet of worship. Eve3r heard of the Summer King?

Christianity killed all that off. St. Patrick's snakes were Druids with serpent tattoos and women were held immediately accountable for original sin.

But still, it wasn't the biggest thugs that ran the ranch. It was those with money and power ... and they exploitd men every bit as much as they exploited women.

And there-in lies the rub. The patriarchy hurts you too. Feminists have only been saying it for decades but you just launch into all sorts of weird stratospheres in defense of it.

Men never gave women power. How insulting. It was never yours to give. You are victims, as we are, of overlords manipulating once religion and now economics to control us.

And see how they divide and conquer.

Were the Celts matriarchal? Ancient DNA reveals men married into local, powerful female lineages

An analysis of dozens of British Iron Age skeletons has revealed that Celtic society was organized around women.


Celtic society in England was female-focused 2,000 years ago, a genetic study of Iron Age skeletons reveals. DNA analysis of dozens of ancient burials uncovered a community whose lineage could be traced back to one woman, and showed that men joined the group upon marriage.

"This is the first time this type of system has been documented in European prehistory," study lead author Lara Cassidy, a human geneticist at Trinity College Dublin, said in a statement, "and it predicts female social and political empowerment. It's relatively rare in modern societies, but this might not always have been the case."

Cassidy and her team analyzed the genomes of 57 people who were buried in cemeteries in Dorset, a county in southwest England, to investigate the social structure of the Durotriges, a Celtic tribe that occupied the coast between 100 B.C. and A.D. 100. Their study was published Wednesday (Jan. 15) in the journal Nature.

Historically, little is known about the pre-Roman people of Britain, although Julius Caesar wrote about the Iceni tribe, which was later ruled by Boudica, and noted that Celtic women were allowed to marry multiple men. But archaeological evidence from Celtic graves has long suggested that women were buried with prestigious items, hinting at their high status.

To figure out who was buried in the Dorset cemeteries, the researchers first sequenced the buried individuals' genomes. They discovered that 85% of the people were related to one another. Additionally, more than two-thirds of these relatives shared a rare mitochondrial DNA lineage — U5b1 — and Y chromosome diversity was high, meaning most people had the same maternal ancestors but not the same paternal ones.

"The U5b1 haplogroup has an ancient association with Europe and Britain," Cassidy told Live Science in an email, but "the few modern individuals who belong to this haplotype are not necessarily direct descendants of women who lived in this community."

Further investigation of the genomic data allowed the research team to generate a family tree that began with one founding woman and her four daughters and spanned at least two centuries and several generations. Given that most of the family members who did not share the same mitochondrial DNA were male, they suspected men were marrying into this community.

"Using genetic data, we found multiple incidences of fathers," Cassidy told Live Science in an email, "one of whom had two adult daughters with the same mother. It is highly likely these individuals were considered husbands to women in the community."

Because the partners they found showed no evidence of recent relatedness, the researchers suggested in the study that these Celts "had a deep knowledge of their own genealogies, which may have been used to guide marital arrangements among a pool of related groups in the local region."

Additionally, the researchers studied previously published genetic data from over 150 archaeological sites across Europe. They found that the British Iron Age was unique in having low mitochondrial genetic diversity and high Y chromosome diversity, meaning that Celtic groups all over Britain were likely organized around important maternal lineages.

Tom Booth, a bioarchaeologist at the Francis Crick Institute in London who was not involved in the study, told Live Science in an email that this study is "one of the most compelling examples of how archaeogenetics is maturing," as it focuses on the history of a specific ancient community.

"We should be cautious when interpreting patterns of genetic relatedness in ancient cemeteries," Booth said, since "we cannot be sure something equivalent to marriage as we understand it existed in Iron Age societies in Britain" and should not assume that people who were buried together lived together.

Nevertheless, the study has "pretty exquisite detail on how maternal relationships were often pre-eminent in deciding who ended up in particular Durotriges cemeteries," Booth said, and the analysis "allows us to glimpse them much more on their own terms rather than through a Roman lens."

That lens appears to have been female-focused, which resonates with Roman descriptions of Celtic women. The researchers concluded in their study that "although classical depictions of conquered peoples are often viewed with scepticism, we find here some truths in these writers' appraisal of Iron Age Britain."


https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/were-the-celts-matriarchal-ancient-dna-reveals-men-married-into-local-powerful-female-lineages

And the study itself:

Continental influx and pervasive matrilocality in Iron Age Britain

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08409-6

mothra wrote on Sep 29^th, 2026 at 7:31am:

And the study itself: Continental influx and pervasive matrilocality in Iron Age Britain https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08409-6

It like this, eh:
Queen Victoria's descendants currently sit on the thrones of five European monarchies: the United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, Spain, and Denmark.
And that's just the monarchs.


If it is about power then it isnt about male or female - what have powerful women do differently?

Slagging off Christianity that killed off girl-power is stupid. Mary is revered, the troubadors, the worship of the Lady, flourished at the height of Christianity and  it is still powerfully influential in Western cultures.



Meanwhile, a bint is worth half a bearded monster among the Mohammedans where sex slavery is still a religious tenet and orthodoxy. But what's that compared to St Patrick and aĺ the women saints?
The way Abos treat their women is abo-minable and is firmly rooted in their pre-historic culture. Every civilisation, in its own way, is trying to outgrow and leave behind that brutish prehistoric uncuvilised way of being and relating to each other.
And so on.


And your smuggling in the two and six gender wheeze is laughably anachronistic and 'now-centred' presentism:  'The past was striving to be like us' (ie like you). Ridiculous.

Frank wrote on Sep 29^th, 2026 at 8:50am:

Slagging off Christianity that killed off girl-power is stupid. Mary is revered, the troubadors, the worship of the Lady, flourished at the height of Christianity and  it is still powerfully influential in Western cultures.

Yes. In direct mockery of women and the fertility cycle.

Seriously, by your age, such things shouldn't have to be explained to you.

What was Mary? Aside from 12 years old. Mary was a virgin now, wasn't she. Free from original sin.

You know, Eve's big bad?

Not to mention Lilith. She was just outrageous.

Face it, old boy. Christianity has a very great deal to answer for, if you're going to be handing out reed cards.

mothra wrote on Oct 1^st, 2026 at 8:24am:

Frank wrote on Sep 29th, 2026 at 8:50am: Slagging off Christianity that killed off girl-power is stupid. Mary is revered, the troubadors, the worship of the Lady, flourished at the height of Christianity and  it is still powerfully influential in Western cultures. Yes. In direct mockery of women and the fertility cycle. Seriously, by your age, such things shouldn't have to be explained to you. What was Mary? Aside from 12 years old. Mary was a virgin now, wasn't she. Free from original sin. You know, Eve's big bad? Not to mention Lilith. She was just outrageous. Face it, old boy. Christianity has a very great deal to answer for, if you're going to be handing out reed cards.

Silly undergraduate drivel.


And you forgot to address the bit of my post that shows the non-Christian, non-Western influence in the world:

Meanwhile, a bint is worth half a bearded monster among the Mohammedans where sex slavery is still a religious tenet and orthodoxy. But what's that compared to St Patrick and aĺ the women saints?
The way Abos treat their women is abo-minable and is firmly rooted in their pre-historic culture. Every civilisation, in its own way, is trying to outgrow and leave behind that brutish prehistoric uncuvilised way of being and relating to each other.
And so on.



Talk to that, too. Dont be a coward all your life.

mothra wrote on Oct 1^st, 2026 at 8:24am:

Frank wrote on Sep 29th, 2026 at 8:50am: Slagging off Christianity that killed off girl-power is stupid. Mary is revered, the troubadors, the worship of the Lady, flourished at the height of Christianity and  it is still powerfully influential in Western cultures. Yes. In direct mockery of women and the fertility cycle. Seriously, by your age, such things shouldn't have to be explained to you. What was Mary? Aside from 12 years old. Mary was a virgin now, wasn't she. Free from original sin. You know, Eve's big bad? Not to mention Lilith. She was just outrageous. Face it, old boy. Christianity has a very great deal to answer for, if you're going to be handing out reed cards.

"Boycott her in bed... and discipline them physically as well, by lightly hitting them to show who is in charge."

https://x.com/NatSecSoc/status/2105218571257225632

PALO ALTO, CA — Local woman and self-proclaimed feminist Brandy Sidwell expressed frustration this week over the fact that all the men she hates refuse to date her.

Despondent over her singleness, Sidwell admitted to her friends that she has trouble holding back her outrage at the male population she's disgusted by for not being interested in her.

"Men are all pigs. Why won't they date me?" Sidwell lamented to friends. "I don't get it. I'm aggressive, shrill, angry, and I talk online all the time about how much I hate men. Why won't any of them ask me out?"

The 34-year-old Sidwell said she wants to get married eventually and start a family, maybe in her late 30s or early 40s, but she knows she needs to at least go on a few dates with "someone from the patriarchy" first.

"I hate to have to date them," she said. "But I know if I want to eventually get married, keep my last name, and spend a lifetime emasculating my husband, I have to date at least one of them."

At publishing time, Sidwell had decided to post a TikTok video outlining why she hates men as a way to get more men to notice her and hopefully ask her out.

mothra wrote on Sep 29^th, 2026 at 7:26am:

Setanta wrote on Sep 28th, 2026 at 10:25pm: Can you show me one human matriarchal society that works without the force of men behind it? Matrilineal is not matriarchal. Jews are also matrilineal. We don't live in a society that women can't hold property. There will never be a pure matriarchical society because all societies need a force of power to back it up and men will always be the more powerful. Example for argument, women could not rise up and kill all men and take power, men can kill all women. There is a power imbalance that nature has implanted in our species, it can't be ignored. Edit: I'd go even further and say all female rights are given and allowed to exist by men. Just wow. This post breaks my heart. Firstly i'm going to say, just to get it out of the way, that you're far more representative of biological certainties granted men than you are of those granted women ... who you would have carry baby to term for men. Do think about it.

It shouldn't break your heart, don't let your emotions rule, it just logic.
Men could just lock women up and use them as breeding sows, just look at Afghanistan and much of the middle east.

I never said this is the kind of society I would like to live in, I am giving you the reason why a matriachy could never exist without men giving them that right but even if one society did, the next one over could just send their men to take over.

Rights are not inate, they are a concept living individually in each of our heads, everyone has their own idea of what rights should be. The rights we have in society are those we can come to a consensus on. Every society and every societies rights must be backed by force or they would cease to exist. Men are the only ones capable of enforcing what society wants. Even if men let women lead, that right is granted by the men. Yes men can dominate other men but that is besides the point, it's still men deciding who gets what rights.

Even my wife gets this and I didn't even have to beat her into submission for her to accept the logic.

Frank wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2026 at 3:20pm:

PALO ALTO, CA — Local woman and self-proclaimed feminist Brandy Sidwell expressed frustration this week over the fact that .......all the men she hates refuse to date her. Despondent over her singleness, Sidwell admitted to her friends that she has trouble holding back her outrage at the male population she's disgusted by for not being interested in her.

Well......she could date me !

Yeah.  !!


Oh wait......she'd have to be willing to woo me.

Aaaaw yeah......i can see.....that may not 'work out'.


Aaaaaw poor girl/woman.

Surely, she will eventually find some scruffy neanderthal.......that she will allow, to satisfy her 'desires' ?

Or maybe not.

Setanta wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2026 at 10:53pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 29th, 2026 at 7:26am: Setanta wrote on Sep 28th, 2026 at 10:25pm: Can you show me one human matriarchal society that works without the force of men behind it? Matrilineal is not matriarchal. Jews are also matrilineal. We don't live in a society that women can't hold property. There will never be a pure matriarchical society because all societies need a force of power to back it up and men will always be the more powerful. Example for argument, women could not rise up and kill all men and take power, men can kill all women. There is a power imbalance that nature has implanted in our species, it can't be ignored. Edit: I'd go even further and say all female rights are given and allowed to exist by men. Just wow. This post breaks my heart. Firstly i'm going to say, just to get it out of the way, that you're far more representative of biological certainties granted men than you are of those granted women ... who you would have carry baby to term for men. Do think about it. It shouldn't break your heart, don't let your emotions rule, it just logic. Men could just lock women up and use them as breeding sows, just look at Afghanistan and much of the middle east. I never said this is the kind of society I would like to live in, I am giving you the reason why a matriachy could never exist without men giving them that right but even if one society did, the next one over could just send their men to take over. Rights are not inate, they are a concept living individually in each of our heads, everyone has their own idea of what rights should be. The rights we have in society are those we can come to a consensus on. Every society and every societies rights must be backed by force or they would cease to exist. Men are the only ones capable of enforcing what society wants. Even if men let women lead, that right is granted by the men. Yes men can dominate other men but that is besides the point, it's still men deciding who gets what rights. Even my wife gets this and I didn't even have to beat her into submission for her to accept the logic.

And you cut off most of my post, refusing to answer it despite asking already answered questions in your reply. Kinda cowardly really.

First up, women are not defenseless and you underestimate us at your peril.

More importantly, i'm not going to repeat myself. I already said it. If you want to advance the discussion, do so. But don't bother trying to tell us your wife agrees with you as some sort of leverage. As you kinda do a lot. It's the internet message board equivalent of telling us your mum thinks your special.

There is no historical or anthropological evidence of a true matriarchy if defined as the literal, structural inverse of patriarchy—a society where women systematically rule over, dominate, and subjugate men. Anthropologists generally agree that the concept of an ancient matriarchal prehistory is a myth. It is heavily influenced by 19th-century evolutionary theories and modern political projections. However, matrilinear societies existed and continue to exist.
The confusion often comes from conflating a "matriarchy" (female domination, the obverse of patriarchy) with social structures where women are more prominent.

Frank wrote on Oct 4^th, 2026 at 10:28am:

There is no historical or anthropological evidence of a true matriarchy if defined as the literal, structural inverse of patriarchy—a society where women systematically rule over, dominate, and subjugate men. Anthropologists generally agree that the concept of an ancient matriarchal prehistory is a myth. It is heavily influenced by 19th-century evolutionary theories and modern political projections. However, matrilinear societies existed and continue to exist. The confusion often comes from conflating a "matriarchy" (female domination, the obverse of patriarchy) with social structures where women are more prominent.

Thanks for the copy and paste, fruitbat. Hope it made you feel relevant.

Meanwhile, we already dispensed with this. Or at least i did. The males 'round these parts are ornery.

mothra wrote on Oct 4^th, 2026 at 9:43am:

First up, women are not defenseless and you underestimate us at your peril. But don't bother trying to tell us your wife agrees with you as some sort of leverage. As you kinda do a lot.

The horrible partiarchy must be shaking in their boots!  ;D

When have I used what my wife says as leverage, it was to show not all women as as insane as you, some can be rational. And if I do it a lot, please show me fibber. ::)

mothra wrote on Sep 29^th, 2026 at 7:30am:

Were the Celts matriarchal? Ancient DNA reveals men married into local, powerful female lineages An analysis of dozens of British Iron Age skeletons has revealed that Celtic society was organized around women. Celtic society in England was female-focused 2,000 years ago, a genetic study of Iron Age skeletons reveals. DNA analysis of dozens of ancient burials uncovered a community whose lineage could be traced back to one woman, and showed that men joined the group upon marriage. "This is the first time this type of system has been documented in European prehistory," study lead author Lara Cassidy, a human geneticist at Trinity College Dublin, said in a statement, "and it predicts female social and political empowerment. It's relatively rare in modern societies, but this might not always have been the case." Cassidy and her team analyzed the genomes of 57 people who were buried in cemeteries in Dorset, a county in southwest England, to investigate the social structure of the Durotriges, a Celtic tribe that occupied the coast between 100 B.C. and A.D. 100. Their study was published Wednesday (Jan. 15) in the journal Nature. Historically, little is known about the pre-Roman people of Britain, although Julius Caesar wrote about the Iceni tribe, which was later ruled by Boudica, and noted that Celtic women were allowed to marry multiple men. But archaeological evidence from Celtic graves has long suggested that women were buried with prestigious items, hinting at their high status. To figure out who was buried in the Dorset cemeteries, the researchers first sequenced the buried individuals' genomes. They discovered that 85% of the people were related to one another. Additionally, more than two-thirds of these relatives shared a rare mitochondrial DNA lineage — U5b1 — and Y chromosome diversity was high, meaning most people had the same maternal ancestors but not the same paternal ones. "The U5b1 haplogroup has an ancient association with Europe and Britain," Cassidy told Live Science in an email, but "the few modern individuals who belong to this haplotype are not necessarily direct descendants of women who lived in this community." Further investigation of the genomic data allowed the research team to generate a family tree that began with one founding woman and her four daughters and spanned at least two centuries and several generations. Given that most of the family members who did not share the same mitochondrial DNA were male, they suspected men were marrying into this community. "Using genetic data, we found multiple incidences of fathers," Cassidy told Live Science in an email, "one of whom had two adult daughters with the same mother. It is highly likely these individuals were considered husbands to women in the community." Because the partners they found showed no evidence of recent relatedness, the researchers suggested in the study that these Celts "had a deep knowledge of their own genealogies, which may have been used to guide marital arrangements among a pool of related groups in the local region." Additionally, the researchers studied previously published genetic data from over 150 archaeological sites across Europe. They found that the British Iron Age was unique in having low mitochondrial genetic diversity and high Y chromosome diversity, meaning that Celtic groups all over Britain were likely organized around important maternal lineages. Tom Booth, a bioarchaeologist at the Francis Crick Institute in London who was not involved in the study, told Live Science in an email that this study is "one of the most compelling examples of how archaeogenetics is maturing," as it focuses on the history of a specific ancient community. "We should be cautious when interpreting patterns of genetic relatedness in ancient cemeteries," Booth said, since "we cannot be sure something equivalent to marriage as we understand it existed in Iron Age societies in Britain" and should not assume that people who were buried together lived together. Nevertheless, the study has "pretty exquisite detail on how maternal relationships were often pre-eminent in deciding who ended up in particular Durotriges cemeteries," Booth said, and the analysis "allows us to glimpse them much more on their own terms rather than through a Roman lens." That lens appears to have been female-focused, which resonates with Roman descriptions of Celtic women. The researchers concluded in their study that "although classical depictions of conquered peoples are often viewed with scepticism, we find here some truths in these writers' appraisal of Iron Age Britain." https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/were-the-celts-matriarchal-ancient-dna-reveals-men-married-into-local-powerful-female-lineages

So no matriarchy, then.

Ta.

Stupid bintery.

https://x.com/its_The_Dr/status/2106611261051961542

Frank wrote on Oct 4^th, 2026 at 11:59pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 29th, 2026 at 7:30am: ...... Celtic society in England was female-focused 2,000 years ago....... .......To figure out who was buried in the Dorset cemeteries, the researchers first sequenced the buried individuals' genomes. 1/      They discovered that 85% of the people were related to one another. 2/      Additionally, more than two-thirds of these relatives shared a rare mitochondrial DNA lineage — U5b1 — and Y chromosome diversity was high, meaning most people had the same maternal ancestors but not the same paternal ones. So no matriarchy, then. Ta.

Clearly, those ancient Dorset inhabitants......were most certainly....recent immigrants from Tasmania.

8-)


A little levity.             :P

Frank wrote on Oct 4^th, 2026 at 11:59pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 29th, 2026 at 7:30am: Were the Celts matriarchal? Ancient DNA reveals men married into local, powerful female lineages An analysis of dozens of British Iron Age skeletons has revealed that Celtic society was organized around women. Celtic society in England was female-focused 2,000 years ago, a genetic study of Iron Age skeletons reveals. DNA analysis of dozens of ancient burials uncovered a community whose lineage could be traced back to one woman, and showed that men joined the group upon marriage. "This is the first time this type of system has been documented in European prehistory," study lead author Lara Cassidy, a human geneticist at Trinity College Dublin, said in a statement, "and it predicts female social and political empowerment. It's relatively rare in modern societies, but this might not always have been the case." Cassidy and her team analyzed the genomes of 57 people who were buried in cemeteries in Dorset, a county in southwest England, to investigate the social structure of the Durotriges, a Celtic tribe that occupied the coast between 100 B.C. and A.D. 100. Their study was published Wednesday (Jan. 15) in the journal Nature. Historically, little is known about the pre-Roman people of Britain, although Julius Caesar wrote about the Iceni tribe, which was later ruled by Boudica, and noted that Celtic women were allowed to marry multiple men. But archaeological evidence from Celtic graves has long suggested that women were buried with prestigious items, hinting at their high status. To figure out who was buried in the Dorset cemeteries, the researchers first sequenced the buried individuals' genomes. They discovered that 85% of the people were related to one another. Additionally, more than two-thirds of these relatives shared a rare mitochondrial DNA lineage — U5b1 — and Y chromosome diversity was high, meaning most people had the same maternal ancestors but not the same paternal ones. "The U5b1 haplogroup has an ancient association with Europe and Britain," Cassidy told Live Science in an email, but "the few modern individuals who belong to this haplotype are not necessarily direct descendants of women who lived in this community." Further investigation of the genomic data allowed the research team to generate a family tree that began with one founding woman and her four daughters and spanned at least two centuries and several generations. Given that most of the family members who did not share the same mitochondrial DNA were male, they suspected men were marrying into this community. "Using genetic data, we found multiple incidences of fathers," Cassidy told Live Science in an email, "one of whom had two adult daughters with the same mother. It is highly likely these individuals were considered husbands to women in the community." Because the partners they found showed no evidence of recent relatedness, the researchers suggested in the study that these Celts "had a deep knowledge of their own genealogies, which may have been used to guide marital arrangements among a pool of related groups in the local region." Additionally, the researchers studied previously published genetic data from over 150 archaeological sites across Europe. They found that the British Iron Age was unique in having low mitochondrial genetic diversity and high Y chromosome diversity, meaning that Celtic groups all over Britain were likely organized around important maternal lineages. Tom Booth, a bioarchaeologist at the Francis Crick Institute in London who was not involved in the study, told Live Science in an email that this study is "one of the most compelling examples of how archaeogenetics is maturing," as it focuses on the history of a specific ancient community. "We should be cautious when interpreting patterns of genetic relatedness in ancient cemeteries," Booth said, since "we cannot be sure something equivalent to marriage as we understand it existed in Iron Age societies in Britain" and should not assume that people who were buried together lived together. Nevertheless, the study has "pretty exquisite detail on how maternal relationships were often pre-eminent in deciding who ended up in particular Durotriges cemeteries," Booth said, and the analysis "allows us to glimpse them much more on their own terms rather than through a Roman lens." That lens appears to have been female-focused, which resonates with Roman descriptions of Celtic women. The researchers concluded in their study that "although classical depictions of conquered peoples are often viewed with scepticism, we find here some truths in these writers' appraisal of Iron Age Britain." https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/were-the-celts-matriarchal-ancient-dna-reveals-men-married-into-local-powerful-female-lineages So no matriarchy, then. Ta.

If you're going to deep dive in threads, do try to look for the posts that discuss what you take out of context.

Or was this a more devious reposting?

Wouldn't surprise me.

In any event, i'm no more interested in repeating myself for you that Setanta.

No point.

mothra wrote on Oct 7^th, 2026 at 7:32am:

Frank wrote on Oct 4th, 2026 at 11:59pm: So no matriarchy, then. Ta. If you're going to deep dive in threads, do try to look for the posts that discuss what you take out of context. Or was this a more devious reposting? Wouldn't surprise me. In any event, i'm no more interested in repeating myself for you that Setanta. No point.

Simp started this thread and called it matriarchy.
The existence of matriarchies was questioned/disputed.
You jumped in asseting female governance and centrality (matriarchy in other words).
Then you posted a long article in support of your assertions but your own article doesnt suppurt the thesis of matfriarchy, only matrilinearity, which nobody ever disputed.
Finally you go all miffy and accuse me of being devious when I point out that your own arthcle doesnt support your claims of matriarchy.
Mebbe just ask Simp to rename the thread Matrilinearity and let it die as another banality thread.

Frank wrote on Oct 7^th, 2026 at 8:45am:

mothra wrote on Oct 7th, 2026 at 7:32am: Frank wrote on Oct 4th, 2026 at 11:59pm: So no matriarchy, then. Ta. If you're going to deep dive in threads, do try to look for the posts that discuss what you take out of context. Or was this a more devious reposting? Wouldn't surprise me. In any event, i'm no more interested in repeating myself for you that Setanta. No point. Simp started this thread and called it matriarchy. The existence of matriarchies was questioned/disputed. You jumped in asseting female governance and centrality (matriarchy in other words). Then you posted a long article in support of your assertions but your own article doesnt suppurt the thesis of matfriarchy, only matrilinearity, which nobody ever disputed. Finally you go all miffy and accuse me of being devious when I point out that your own arthcle doesnt support your claims of matriarchy. Mebbe just ask Simp to rename the thread Matrilinearity and let it die as another banality thread.

You're quite wrong. I said in the post before i linked this paper that thre was no true matriarchy found yet through our analysis of history.

I said a lot more than that .... but you missed it.

You usually do.

Would you like to go back and see what i said or do you need me to copy and paste it in for you?

mothra wrote on Oct 7^th, 2026 at 8:55am:

Frank wrote on Oct 7th, 2026 at 8:45am: mothra wrote on Oct 7th, 2026 at 7:32am: Frank wrote on Oct 4th, 2026 at 11:59pm: So no matriarchy, then. Ta. If you're going to deep dive in threads, do try to look for the posts that discuss what you take out of context. Or was this a more devious reposting? Wouldn't surprise me. In any event, i'm no more interested in repeating myself for you that Setanta. No point. Simp started this thread and called it matriarchy. The existence of matriarchies was questioned/disputed. You jumped in asseting female governance and centrality (matriarchy in other words). Then you posted a long article in support of your assertions but your own article doesnt suppurt the thesis of matfriarchy, only matrilinearity, which nobody ever disputed. Finally you go all miffy and accuse me of being devious when I point out that your own arthcle doesnt support your claims of matriarchy. Mebbe just ask Simp to rename the thread Matrilinearity and let it die as another banality thread. You're quite wrong. I said in the post before i linked this paper that thre was no true matriarchy found yet through our analysis of history. I said a lot more than that .... but you missed it. You usually do. Would you like to go back and see what i said or do you need me to copy and paste it in for you?

You defined patriarchy as "absolute power" and said women are not as stupid as to pursue absolute power as men do.
That is a very stupid and slyly dishonest characterisation of men so you were happy to concede that on your dishonestly defined terms, there were no female equivalents of such male stupidity.

Big of you frightbat. Stupid, dishonest, grotesque but still, your concession.

Frank wrote on Oct 7^th, 2026 at 9:21am:

mothra wrote on Oct 7th, 2026 at 8:55am: Frank wrote on Oct 7th, 2026 at 8:45am: mothra wrote on Oct 7th, 2026 at 7:32am: Frank wrote on Oct 4th, 2026 at 11:59pm: So no matriarchy, then. Ta. If you're going to deep dive in threads, do try to look for the posts that discuss what you take out of context. Or was this a more devious reposting? Wouldn't surprise me. In any event, i'm no more interested in repeating myself for you that Setanta. No point. Simp started this thread and called it matriarchy. The existence of matriarchies was questioned/disputed. You jumped in asseting female governance and centrality (matriarchy in other words). Then you posted a long article in support of your assertions but your own article doesnt suppurt the thesis of matfriarchy, only matrilinearity, which nobody ever disputed. Finally you go all miffy and accuse me of being devious when I point out that your own arthcle doesnt support your claims of matriarchy. Mebbe just ask Simp to rename the thread Matrilinearity and let it die as another banality thread. You're quite wrong. I said in the post before i linked this paper that thre was no true matriarchy found yet through our analysis of history. I said a lot more than that .... but you missed it. You usually do. Would you like to go back and see what i said or do you need me to copy and paste it in for you? You defined patriarchy as "absolute power" and said women are not as stupid as to pursue absolute power as men do. That is a very stupid and slyly dishonest characterisation of men so you were happy to concede that on your dishonestly defined terms, there were no female equivalents of such male stupidity. Big of you frightbat. Stupid, dishonest, grotesque but still, your concession.

Oh? Are we in agreement that there have been many egalitarian societies throughout history? That we are finding more and more about such daily?hat women have been active and powerful active members of history ... so routinely written by a bloke yet we persevere.

Ask yourselves why it's so important to you to relegate us to footnote. To suggest we have never had any agency. To suggest we were never a threat.

Then ask yourselves why you yourselves are so far down on the totem pole that you feel bolstered by such slim pickings.

All i'm getting is the chest thumping of low quality men.

mothra wrote on Oct 7^th, 2026 at 9:53am:

Oh? Are we in agreement that there have been many egalitarian societies throughout history? That we are finding more and more about such daily?hat women have been active and powerful active members of history ... so routinely written by a bloke yet we persevere. Ask yourselves why it's so important to you to relegate us to footnote. To suggest we have never had any agency. To suggest we were never a threat. Then ask yourselves why you yourselves are so far down on the totem pole that you feel bolstered by such slim pickings. All i'm getting is the chest thumping of low quality men.

:D :D

You attribute to me bombastic, idiotic, malicious ideas that in fact crowd your own mind and which I never said or implied.

When it is pointed out that you OVERstate your case your moronic, ignorant, devious defence is that you are responding to nullity, to absolute erasure, to total this and complete that.

Like Simp, you operate in a saints and devils world.
Ludicrous.
Scatter some underwear to complete the scene.



PS.

Just for slow ones at the back of the class - saying that you are a bombastic fool doesn't say that all women are. You are afflicted as an individual, as is Simp.

mothra wrote on Oct 7^th, 2026 at 9:53am:

All i'm getting is the chest thumping of low quality men.

;D

That's rich coming from a narcisistic, gaslighting low quality woman.

Chief of the Australian Army Lieutenant General Susan Coyle

women make up 51% of the population and commit 9% of the violent crimes.

women are more educated at men at every level

women are biologically superior. outliving men by 6 years.

when women lead, violent crimes go down and communities get stronger.
when men lead, the opposite occurs

“Women are made to fly and soar,” she wrote, “not to creep and crawl, as the haters of our sex want us to.”

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 8^th, 2026 at 10:23am:

women make up 51% of the population and commit 9% of the violent crimes. women are more educated at men at every level women are biologically superior. outliving men by 6 years. when women lead, violent crimes go down and communities get stronger. when men lead, the opposite occurs

When are you transitioning? Still pre-operational?

There would be no women without men, no men without women, simp. Your moronic little campaign to degrade and slander men is, well, moronic.
Simp, stop being such a little .. what's the word...... bitch. That's it. A bitch. Dont try to earn koala stamp for out-bitching the militant sisters.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1088942224021995

Experts Theorize Possible Connection Between TikTokers Celebrating Women Killing Their Children And More Women Killing Their Children


https://media.babylonbee.com/articles/6ac68cb57ed416ac68cb57ed42.jpg

U.S. — Could there be a connection between TikTokers celebrating women killing their children and more women killing their children? Experts at the American Psychiatric Association think there could be.

It's long been a staple of psychiatry that correlation does not equal causation; however, experts are seemingly unable to deny what appears to be an obvious connection between positively reinforcing the murder of children and more children turning up dead.

"It would appear that praising a woman for murdering her children leads to more murdered children," said Dr. Anton LeVic, an expert in filicide. "Very curious."

Experts reportedly examined a graph marking the paired upward trends in reported child murders and celebratory TikTok videos.

"Fascinating. Both the lines are going up," noted Dr. Philip Gardner, a graph expert. "Hmmm. What could it mean? It's almost as if we, as a society, should be actively discouraging the murder of children."

According to sources, the APA has been consulting with the federal government about its findings, concerned that child murder may soon reach a singularity. Dr. LeVic, who first made the startling connection, is hoping to get approval for a nationwide ad campaign featuring a set of TikTok videos designed to actively discourage the murder of children by shaming women for even contemplating it.

"It's time we brought shame back to America," Dr. LeVic said. "Our future may depend upon it."

At publishing time, the APA had dismissed Dr. LeVic from the association after he also pointed out a surprising correlation between support for abortion and child murder.

Young Mom Allegedly Stabbed Husband and Toddler to Death at Family Resort Then Called 911 to Ask for Advice in Her Suicide Attempt

TANNERSVILLE, Pocono Township — A motive remained elusive for the killings this week of a father and his 3-year-old son during their three-week stay as guests at Great Wolf Lodge in Monroe County.

The alleged killer was identified by county District Attorney Mike Mancuso as Metallica Rose Harrison, 27, of Towanda, whom the police charged with two counts of criminal homicide. Harrison is the wife and mother of the two victims, and the police said she turned a knife on herself at some point during the incident.

“Every day, I work so hard to be the best person, the best mother, the best wife,” Harrison reportedly said to medical emergency crew, according to the charging document.

“It wasn’t supposed to end like this. I was supposed to have my happy family. That’s what I envisioned since I was a child,” she said as first responders took her away.

Frank wrote on Oct 16^th, 2026 at 10:03am:

Young Mom Allegedly Stabbed Husband and Toddler to Death at Family Resort Then Called 911 to Ask for Advice in Her Suicide Attempt TANNERSVILLE, Pocono Township — A motive remained elusive for the killings this week of a father and his 3-year-old son during their three-week stay as guests at Great Wolf Lodge in Monroe County. The alleged killer was identified by county District Attorney Mike Mancuso as Metallica Rose Harrison, 27, of Towanda, whom the police charged with two counts of criminal homicide. Harrison is the wife and mother of the two victims, and the police said she turned a knife on herself at some point during the incident. “Every day, I work so hard to be the best person, the best mother, the best wife,” Harrison reportedly said to medical emergency crew, according to the charging document. “It wasn’t supposed to end like this. I was supposed to have my happy family. That’s what I envisioned since I was a child,” she said as first responders took her away.

i wonder what he did to force her to this

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 16^th, 2026 at 11:07am:

Frank wrote on Oct 16th, 2026 at 10:03am: Young Mom Allegedly Stabbed Husband and Toddler to Death at Family Resort Then Called 911 to Ask for Advice in Her Suicide Attempt TANNERSVILLE, Pocono Township — A motive remained elusive for the killings this week of a father and his 3-year-old son during their three-week stay as guests at Great Wolf Lodge in Monroe County. The alleged killer was identified by county District Attorney Mike Mancuso as Metallica Rose Harrison, 27, of Towanda, whom the police charged with two counts of criminal homicide. Harrison is the wife and mother of the two victims, and the police said she turned a knife on herself at some point during the incident. “Every day, I work so hard to be the best person, the best mother, the best wife,” Harrison reportedly said to medical emergency crew, according to the charging document. “It wasn’t supposed to end like this. I was supposed to have my happy family. That’s what I envisioned since I was a child,” she said as first responders took her away. i wonder what he did to force her to this

Yeah, Simp, coz women have no individual agency or personal responsibility, they are all just puppets of men.

Gawd you are a simpleton and a fool.

In 1952, a Black woman from Virginia traveled to France to give away an invention that the United States government had refused to embrace. She wanted nothing in return. She simply wanted wounded veterans to be able to feed themselves again.
Her name was Bessie Blount Griffin, and she was a physical therapist who had spent years helping soldiers who returned from World War II with devastating injuries.
Many had lost their arms. Others could no longer perform the simplest daily tasks without assistance. Blount believed that restoring independence was just as important as treating physical wounds.
Working in her own kitchen, she developed an extraordinary device: an electrically powered feeding apparatus that delivered food to a person's mouth through a tube. By biting down on a switch, someone without arms could control the delivery of each mouthful.
She patented her invention in 1951.
But when she offered it to the United States Veterans Administration, officials showed little interest. Blount refused to let her work disappear.
In 1952, she traveled to France and transferred the rights to her invention to the French government without payment.
Her achievement was remarkable in an era when Black women faced enormous barriers in medicine, engineering, and patent ownership.
Blount later pursued another extraordinary career in forensic science, becoming a pioneer in handwriting analysis.
She died in 2009 at the age of 95.
America had declined her invention. She gave it to another country rather than abandon the people it could help.

Frank wrote on Oct 16^th, 2026 at 11:11am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 16th, 2026 at 11:07am: Frank wrote on Oct 16th, 2026 at 10:03am: Young Mom Allegedly Stabbed Husband and Toddler to Death at Family Resort Then Called 911 to Ask for Advice in Her Suicide Attempt TANNERSVILLE, Pocono Township — A motive remained elusive for the killings this week of a father and his 3-year-old son during their three-week stay as guests at Great Wolf Lodge in Monroe County. The alleged killer was identified by county District Attorney Mike Mancuso as Metallica Rose Harrison, 27, of Towanda, whom the police charged with two counts of criminal homicide. Harrison is the wife and mother of the two victims, and the police said she turned a knife on herself at some point during the incident. “Every day, I work so hard to be the best person, the best mother, the best wife,” Harrison reportedly said to medical emergency crew, according to the charging document. “It wasn’t supposed to end like this. I was supposed to have my happy family. That’s what I envisioned since I was a child,” she said as first responders took her away. i wonder what he did to force her to this Yeah, Simp, coz women have no individual agency or personal responsibility, they are all just puppets of men. Gawd you are a simpleton and a fool.

;D