Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
Matriarchy (Read 514 times)
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 42362
Gender: male
Matriarchy
Sep 28th, 2026 at 8:55pm
 



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.
Back to top
 

Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
Setanta
Gold Member
*****
Offline


\/ Peace man!

Posts: 17612
Northern NSW
Gender: male
Re: Matriarchy
Reply #1 - 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.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Sep 28th, 2026 at 10:51pm by Setanta »  
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 23044
A cat with a view
Re: Matriarchy
Reply #2 - Sep 28th, 2026 at 11:28pm
 


'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.



Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
mothra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 36810
Gender: female
Re: Matriarchy
Reply #3 - 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.

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.
Back to top
 

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.
 
IP Logged
 
mothra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 36810
Gender: female
Re: Matriarchy
Reply #4 - 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-r...
Back to top
 

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.
 
IP Logged
 
mothra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 36810
Gender: female
Re: Matriarchy
Reply #5 - Sep 29th, 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
Back to top
 

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 60979
Gender: male
Re: Matriarchy
Reply #6 - Sep 29th, 2026 at 8:50am
 
mothra wrote on Sep 29th, 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.




Back to top
« Last Edit: Sep 29th, 2026 at 9:13am by Frank »  

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
mothra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 36810
Gender: female
Re: Matriarchy
Reply #7 - Oct 1st, 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.
Back to top
 

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 60979
Gender: male
Re: Matriarchy
Reply #8 - Oct 1st, 2026 at 9:28am
 
mothra wrote on Oct 1st, 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.



Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 60979
Gender: male
Re: Matriarchy
Reply #9 - Oct 1st, 2026 at 11:01pm
 
mothra wrote on Oct 1st, 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
Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 60979
Gender: male
Re: Matriarchy
Reply #10 - Oct 3rd, 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.

"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.
Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Setanta
Gold Member
*****
Offline


\/ Peace man!

Posts: 17612
Northern NSW
Gender: male
Re: Matriarchy
Reply #11 - Oct 3rd, 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 23044
A cat with a view
Re: Matriarchy
Reply #12 - Oct 3rd, 2026 at 11:12pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 3rd, 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.



Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
mothra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 36810
Gender: female
Re: Matriarchy
Reply #13 - Oct 4th, 2026 at 9:43am
 
Setanta wrote on Oct 3rd, 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.
Back to top
 

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 60979
Gender: male
Re: Matriarchy
Reply #14 - Oct 4th, 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.
Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print