An era of matriarchy?

[Ciel_Rouge]

Probably deserves it's own thread, however......

That we find examples of societies where inheritance can be (or is exclusively) aligned along the maternal line does not warrant a conclusion of matriarchy, let alone "an era of matriarchy".

Fertility is powerful. Androgeny is "mystical"..... What about a King seems matriarchal to you?

The trouble is that we just can't find evidence of any era of matriarchy (or any of the other attendant assumed attributes when we find an example of what -might- have been a matriarchy, or at least a more egalitarian society). Whatever hatred you see towards women is much more likely a product of the cultures general level of home grown misogyny than any effect of some prehistoric coup d'etat.

I have even read of more recent matriarchical societies but they were isolated and not very large, some tribes in Siberia or something like that.

Regarding kings, I read that in the ancient middle east kings wore fake boobies which seems like a relic of an era where rulers were naturally female.

Besides, we DID have successful female rulers like Elisabeth, Catherine the Great or... Angela Merkel So women are capable of ruling or even having authoritarian and absolute power, it is just social suppression that prevents that.

Is there any inherent reason to hate women? Unless you have a bunch of men who are fed up of suppression under matriarchy...

Furthermore, the usual pasiveness and submission of women is a learned trait. If you look at little girls many of them or even the majority are NOT submissive, to the contrary - they seem quite dominant and defiant. Only the subsequent social repression and "role models" change that. So the idea that women have been always tread upon since prehistory seems like catchy propaganda and nothing more.

If we go beyond 3000 or 5000 BCE we still have thousands if not tens of thousands of years of history and plenty of room for exotic social and political configurations.